IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

OTHEANER DEON MURPHY §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23cv311

WARDEN, MARK W. STILES UNIT §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Otheaner Deon Murphy, a prisoner confined at the Goree Unit of the Texas

Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se, brings this

lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Warden of the Mark W. Stiles Unit.

The above-styled action was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636 and the Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to the United States Magistrate Judge

for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case. 

Discussion

Plaintiff asserts that he “was subjected to severe mental suffering while [he] was a prisoner”

at the Stiles Unit.

Standard of Review

An in forma pauperis proceeding may be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

if it: (1) is frivolous or malicious, (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or (3)

seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 

A complaint, containing as it does both factual allegations and legal conclusions, is frivolous

where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989);

Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373 (5th Cir. 2005); McCormick v. Stalder, 105 F.3d 1059, 1061

(5th Cir. 1997). A complaint lacks an arguable basis in law if it is based on an indisputably

meritless legal theory. See Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997). 

Case 1:23-cv-00311-MJT-ZJH Document 8 Filed 11/30/23 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 18
In addition to the legal basis of the complaint, Section 1915 empowers the court to pierce the

veil of the complainant’s factual allegations if they are clearly baseless. Denton v. Hernandez, 504

U.S. 25, 32 (1992); Ancar v. Sara Plasma, Inc., 964 F.2d 465 (5th Cir. 1992). A complaint lacks

an arguable basis in fact if, after providing the plaintiff the opportunity to present additional facts

when necessary, the facts alleged are clearly baseless. Denton, 504 U.S. at 32. 

In Denton v. Hernandez, the Supreme Court “declined the invitation to reduce the clearly

baseless inquiry to a monolithic standard.” Denton, 504 U.S. at 33. Examples of complaints within

the clearly baseless inquiry are those which describe fanciful, fantastic, or delusional scenarios. A

complaint is factually frivolous if the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or wholly

incredible. Pleaded facts which are merely improbable or strange, however, are not clearly baseless

for Section 1915(d) purposes. Id.

A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if the factual allegations

are not sufficient to raise a right to relief above the speculative level. Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1965, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). Dismissal for failure

to state a claim is appropriate when the plaintiff has failed to plead “sufficient factual matter,

accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570). Plaintiffs must state

enough facts to “nudge[] their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible.” Twombly, 550

U.S. 544, 570. 

In considering whether to dismiss a complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted, all factual allegations in the complaint must be taken as true and construed favorably

to the plaintiff. Fernandez-Montes v. Allied Pilots Assoc., 987 F.2d 278, 284 (5th Cir. 1993). 

However, conclusory allegations will not suffice to prevent dismissal for failure to state a claim. Id.

2

Case 1:23-cv-00311-MJT-ZJH Document 8 Filed 11/30/23 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 19
Analysis

Elements of a Cause of Action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 authorizes a suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redressing

violations of the Constitution and federal law by those acting under color of state law. See Nelson

v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 643 (2004); Conn v. Gabbert, 526 U.S. 286, 290 (1999). It provides: 

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any

State ... subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person

within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities

secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured .... 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Supervisory Liability

Plaintiff has named the Warden of the Stiles Unit as the defendant in this action. In order

to successfully plead a cause of action in a civil rights case, a plaintiff must enunciate a set of facts

that illustrate the defendant’s participation in the alleged wrong. Jacquez v. Procunier, 801 F.2d

789, 793 (5th Cir. 1990). Plaintiff has failed to allege or demonstrate any personal participation by

the defendant in the alleged constitutional violations. Further, to the extent plaintiff may claim the

defendant failed to correct the alleged wrongful actions of his or her subordinate, plaintiff has failed

to show a constitutional violation regarding the alleged actions of a subordinate. 

Even assuming, arguendo, that plaintiff was able to show a constitutional violation of a

subordinate of the defendant, supervisory officials are not liable for subordinates’ actions on any

vicarious liability theory. A supervisor may be held liable if either of the following exists: (1) his

personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation, or (2) sufficient causal connection between

the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional violations. Thompkins v. Belt, 828 F.2d

298, 303-304 (5th Cir. 1987). In order to demonstrate a causal connection, the supervisor would

have to “implement a policy so deficient that the policy itself is a repudiation of constitutional rights

and is the moving force of the constitutional violation.” Id. 828 F.2d at 304. Neither condition is

satisfied in the present action. Therefore, plaintiff’s allegations fail to rise to the level required to

3

Case 1:23-cv-00311-MJT-ZJH Document 8 Filed 11/30/23 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 20
establish a constitutional violation and should be dismissed as frivolous and for failing to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted.

Grievances

Liberally construed, plaintiff’s claim against the defendant is alternatively interpreted as a

claim that the defendant failed to properly investigate and resolve his grievances. However, inmates

do not have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in having their complaints resolved to their

satisfaction, and so there is no constitutional violation when prison officials fail to do so. See Geiger

v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373-74 (5th Cir.2005) (“Geiger does not have a federally protected liberty

interest in having these grievances resolved to his satisfaction. As he relies on a legally nonexistent

interest, any alleged due process violation arising from the alleged failure to investigate his

grievances is indisputably merciless.”). Accordingly, plaintiff’s claim against the defendant fails to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Supplemental Jurisdiction

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a district court maydecline to exercise supplemental

jurisdiction over a claim if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original

jurisdiction. Thus, to the extent plaintiff’s complaint may be liberally interpreted as asserting state

law claims, supplemental jurisdiction should be declined in this action.

Recommendation

Plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted. The exercise of supplemental jurisdiction should be denied. 

Objections

Within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the magistrate judge’s report, any

party may serve and file written objections to the findings of facts, conclusions of law and

recommendations of the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C).

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings of facts, conclusions of law and

recommendations contained within this report within fourteen days after service shall bar an

4

Case 1:23-cv-00311-MJT-ZJH Document 8 Filed 11/30/23 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 21
aggrieved party from the entitlement of de novo review by the district court of the proposed findings,

conclusions and recommendations and from appellate review of factual findings and legal

conclusions accepted by the district court except on grounds of plain error. Douglass v. United

Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R.

CIV. P. 72.

5

_________________________

Zack Hawthorn

United States Magistrate Judge SIGNED this 30th day of November, 2023.

Case 1:23-cv-00311-MJT-ZJH Document 8 Filed 11/30/23 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 22