Opinion
NO. 3-04-CV-0728-D.
June 1, 2004
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This case has been referred to the United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and a standing order of reference from the district court. The findings and recommendation of the magistrate judge are as follow:
I.
This is a civil rights action brought by Plaintiff Mark A. White, a former inmate at the Hutchins State Jail, against: (1) Warden T. Simpson; (2) Nathaniel Quarterman, Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice — State Jail Division ("TDCJ-SJD"); and (3) a "Mr. Massey," Director of Health Services at the jail. On April 7, 2004, plaintiff filed a pro se complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Because the information provided by plaintiff in his pauper's affidavit indicates that he lacks the funds necessary to prosecute this case, the court granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and allowed the complaint to be filed. Written interrogatories were then sent to plaintiff in order to obtain additional information about the factual basis of this suit. See Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179, 181 (5th Cir. 1985). On April 30, 2004, plaintiff filed his interrogatory answers with the district clerk. He also filed a motion to amend his complaint to assert additional claims against the defendants. The court now determines that plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief against any defendant named in his complaint and that this action should be summarily dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
On April 30, 2004, plaintiff advised the court that he is now living in Smyrna, Georgia. The court presumes that plaintiff either has completed his sentence or has been released to parole or mandatory supervision.
Because defendants have not yet served a responsive pleading, plaintiff may amend his complaint "as a matter of course" without seeking leave of court. See FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a).
II.
Plaintiff asserts a myriad of claims arising out of his confinement at the Hutchins State Jail. Succinctly stated, plaintiff alleges that: (1) inmates are routinely denied adequate medical and dental care; (2) the food is nutritionally deficient; (3) the jail is overcrowded and lacks adequate recreational facilities; (4) he was placed in administrative segregation for five or six days for no apparent reason; (5) corrections officers verbally abuse inmates and exacerbate racial tensions among the prisoners; (6) his name was misspelled on a prison identification card; (7) the conditions at the jail are unsanitary; and (8) he was denied the right to attend religious services.
A.
A district court may dismiss a complaint filed in forma pauperis if it concludes that the action is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A complaint fails to state a claim "if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations." Hishon v. King Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73, 104 S.Ct. 2229, 2232, 81 L.Ed.2d 59 (1984). The court must assume that the facts set forth in the complaint are true. See Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 164, 113 S.Ct. 1160, 1161, 122 L.Ed.2d 517 (1993). However, dismissal is proper where "even the most sympathetic reading of [the] pleadings uncovers no theory and no facts that would subject the present defendants to liability." Jacquez v. Procunier, 801 F.2d 789, 791-92 (5th Cir. 1986).
B.
Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against Warden T. Simpson, TDCJ-SJD Director Nathaniel Quarterman, or Health Services Director Massey — the only three defendants named in his complaint. These defendants, all of whom supervise certain aspects of jail operations, are not liable for the actions of their subordinates under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Jett v. Dallas Independent School District, 491 U.S. 701, 736, 109 S.Ct. 2702, 2723, 105 L.Ed.2d 598 (1989); Thompson v. Steele, 709 F.2d 381, 382 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 104 S.Ct. 248 (1983) (personal involvement is an essential element in civil rights cause of action). As supervisors, these defendants are liable only if: (1) they affirmatively participated in acts that caused a constitutional deprivation; or (2) implemented unconstitutional policies that resulted in injury to plaintiff. Mouille v. City of Live Oak, Texas, 977 F.2d 924, 929 (5th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 2443 (1993). It is clear from plaintiff's interrogatory answers that none of the defendants were personally involved in the alleged constitutional deprivations made the basis of this suit. Instead, plaintiff alleges that Simpson "is head of all day to day operations and procedures at Hutchins State Jail," that Quarterman is obligated to make sure that "all state jails are run correctly," and that Massey is responsible for "any wrong doing or staff neglect that happens medically[.]" ( See Spears Quest. # 12-14). Such allegations are insufficient to state a claim against these defendants in their individual capacities.
Plaintiff also is precluded from maintaining a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because he did not exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit. ( See Plf. Orig. Compl. at 2, ¶ III). 28 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Alexander v. Tippah County, Mississippi, 351 F.3d 626, 630 (5th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, ___ S.Ct. ___, 2004 WL 875582 (U.S. Apr. 26, 2004); Wendell v. Asher, 162 F.3d 887, 890-91 (5th Cir. 1998).
RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff's complaint should be summarily dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.