IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

§

BILL PAUL MCDANIEL

§

VS. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-CV-53

§

ORANGE COUNTY CORRECTIONAL

FACILITY §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, Bill Paul McDaniel, a pretrial detainee currently held at the Orange County

Correctional Facility, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

against the Defendant the Orange County Correctional Facility. 

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.

Factual Allegations

Plaintiff filed the above-referenced complaint on February 3, 2023 (doc. # 1). Plaintiff

alleges the following: 

My reason for this is, I’ve been incarcerated here at Orange County

Correctional Facility since the date of 08/22/2022. Since I’ve been here the

medical department fails to get me proper medical attention. The assigned

doctor has even granted me an [sic] referral to UTMB Galveston, TX for

dermatologist visit for my plaque psoriasis skin condition. I feel that my

amendment rights have been violated and this is very unprofessional/would

like to file an [sic] civil lawsuit. 

Original Complaint, pg. 4 (doc. # 1).

Case 1:23-cv-00053-MJT-ZJH Document 4 Filed 03/24/23 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 14
Standard of Review

A lawsuit shall be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) if the action or appeal

is (1) frivolous or malicious or (2) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks

monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 

Section 1915(e)(2)(B) applies equally to prisoner and non-prisoner in forma pauperis cases. James

v. Richardson, 344 Fed. App’x 982 (5th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (not designated for publication)

(“Section 1915(e)(2)(B) requires dismissal of frivolous IFP actions even if those actions are brought

by non-prisoner plaintiffs.”) (citing Newsome v. E.E.O.C., 301 F.3d 227, 231 (5th Cir. 2002) (per

curiam)). The Supreme Court has considered when a complaint is frivolous. In Neitzke v. Williams,

490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989), the Court held “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.” The Court

went on to say that a claim is legally frivolous under § 1915 when it is based on “an indisputably

meritless legal theory.” Id. at 327; see also Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997). 

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 v. Hernandez, 504

U.S. 25, 32-34 (1992). 

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 speculation level. Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Dismissal for failure to state a claim is appropriate when the

plaintiff has failed to plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. 

Plaintiffs must state enough facts to “nudge[] their claims across the line from conceivable to

plausible.” Id. In considering whether to dismiss a complaint for failing to state a claim upon which

2

Case 1:23-cv-00053-MJT-ZJH Document 4 Filed 03/24/23 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 15
relief may be granted, all factual allegations in the complaint must be taken as true and construed

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

1993). 

Analysis

Plaintiff sues the Orange County Correctional Facility. The capacity of an entity, such as a

police department or a county jail, to sue or to be sued is “determined by the law of the state in which

the district court is held.” FED. R. CIV. P. 17(b); Darby v. Pasadena Police Dep’t., 939 F.2d 311,

313 (5th Cir. 1991). In order for a plaintiff to sue a department of a city or county, that department

must enjoy a separate legal existence. Darby, 939 F.2d at 313. Unless the political entity that

created the department has taken “explicit steps to grant the servient agency with jural authority,”

the department lacks the capacity to sue or to be sued. Id. A department of county government

cannot engage in litigation “unless the true political entity has taken explicit steps to grant the

servient agency with jural authority.” Alcala v. Dallas County Sheriff’s Department, No. 92-1853,

slip op. at 2 (5th Cir. Mar. 12, 1993) (quoting Darby, 939 F.2d at 313-14).

Federal courts in Texas have uniformly held that entities without a separate jural existence

are not subject to suit. See, e.g., Bridges v. Rossi, No. 3:96cv488, 1998 WL 241242 at *5 (N.D. Tex.

May 6, 1998) (holding that Dallas Police Department lacks jural existence and the capacity to be

sued); Magnett v. Dallas County Sheriff’s Department, No. 3:96cv3191, 1998 WL51355 at *1 (N.D.

Tex. Jan. 20, 1998) (holding that neither the Dallas County Sheriff’s Department nor the Dallas

CountySheriff’s Department Detention Services Bureau has the legal authorityto engage in separate

litigation); Jacobs v. Port Neches Police Department, 915 F.Supp. 842, 844 (E.D. Tex. 1996)

3

Case 1:23-cv-00053-MJT-ZJH Document 4 Filed 03/24/23 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 16
(holding that county sheriff’s department and county district attorney’s office are not legal entities

capable of suing or being sued). 

Plaintiff has the burden of showing that the city or county department has the capacity to be

sued. Darby, 939 F.2d at 314. However, Plaintiff has failed to allege or demonstrate that the Orange

CountyCorrectional Facilityis a separate legal entityhaving jural authority. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

claims against this entity should be dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted. 

Recommendation

Plaintiff’s claims against the Orange County Correctional Facility should be dismissed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim and as frivolous.

Objections

Within fourteen (14) days after receipt 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 (14) days after service shall bar an

aggrieved party from 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

4

Case 1:23-cv-00053-MJT-ZJH Document 4 Filed 03/24/23 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 17
the district court except on grounds of plain error. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Assoc’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 24th day of March, 2023.

Case 1:23-cv-00053-MJT-ZJH Document 4 Filed 03/24/23 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 18