From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Patterson v. Kaufman County Detention Center

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
Jun 13, 2005
3:05-CV-0962-D (N.D. Tex. Jun. 13, 2005)

Opinion

3:05-CV-0962-D.

June 13, 2005


FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and an order of the court in implementation thereof, this case has been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge. The findings, conclusions and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, as evidenced by his signature thereto, are as follows:

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Type of Case: This is a civil rights complaint brought by a county inmate pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Parties: Plaintiff is presently confined at the Kaufman County Jail in Kaufman, Texas. Defendants are the Kaufman County Detention Center, Officer Wheeler, and Officer Adams. The Court has not issued process in this case.

Statement of Case: The complaint alleges two instances in which Officers Wheeler and Adams used a taser gun to restore order at the Kaufman County Detention Center. Plaintiff alleges the two incidents amounted to the excessive use of force in violation of his constitutional rights. He requests monetary relief. Findings and Conclusions: The court has permitted Plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis. His complaint is, thus, subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which imposes a screening responsibility on the district court. Section 1915A reads in pertinent part as follows:

The court shall review . . . as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity [and] [o]n review, the court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint (1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and (b) (emphasis added). See also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

Both sections 1915A(b) and 1915(e)(2)(B) provide for sua sponte dismissal if the Court finds that the complaint is "frivolous" or that it "fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." A complaint is frivolous, if it "lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).

Plaintiff seeks to sue the Kaufman County Detention Center. It is well settled that a plaintiff may not bring a civil rights claim against a servient political agency or department unless such agency or department enjoys a separate and distinct legal existence. See Darby v. Pasadena Police Dep't, 939 F.2d 311, 313 (5th Cir. 1991). In Darby, the Fifth Circuit held that "unless the true political entity has taken explicit steps to grant the servient agency with jural authority, the agency cannot engage in any litigation except in concert with the government itself." Id. Plaintiff has failed to show that the Kaufman County Detention Center has ever been granted the capacity to sue or be sued and, as such, it should be dismissed with prejudice.

Accepting as true Plaintiff's allegations as to the force used by Officers Wheeler and Adams, the Magistrate Judge concludes that Plaintiff has arguably raised two claims for the excessive use of force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1992); Rankin v. Klevenhagen, 5 F.3d 103, 106-107 (5th Cir. 1993) (to state an excessive force claim under § 1983, a prisoner or pretrial detainee must show that force was not applied in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline but, rather, was administered maliciously and sadistically to cause harm). Therefore, Plaintiff's claims against Officers Wheeler and Adams are not subject to dismissal at the screening stage.

RECOMMENDATION:

For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the District Court dismiss Plaintiff's claims against the Kaufman County Detention Center with prejudice as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b) and 1915(e)(2).

It is further recommended that the District Court order the Clerk to prepare summons for Officers Wheeler and Adams on Plaintiff's excessive force claims and deliver them to the U.S. Marshal for service of process.

The Clerk will mail a copy of this recommendation to Plaintiff Billy J. Patterson, #70307-04, Kaufman County Jail, 1800 Hwy. 175, Kaufman, Texas 75142.

NOTICE

In the event that you wish to object to this recommendation, you are hereby notified that you must file your written objections within ten days after being served with a copy of this recommendation. Pursuant to Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), a party's failure to file written objections to these proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law within such ten-day period may bar a de novo determination by the district judge of any finding of fact or conclusion of law and shall bar such party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected to proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law accepted by the district court.


Summaries of

Patterson v. Kaufman County Detention Center

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
Jun 13, 2005
3:05-CV-0962-D (N.D. Tex. Jun. 13, 2005)
Case details for

Patterson v. Kaufman County Detention Center

Case Details

Full title:BILLY J. PATTERSON, Plaintiff, v. KAUFMAN COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, et al.…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division

Date published: Jun 13, 2005

Citations

3:05-CV-0962-D (N.D. Tex. Jun. 13, 2005)

Citing Cases

Estate of Schroeder v. Gillespie Cnty.

Similarly, the Plaintiffs in this case have sued the Gillespie County Sheriff's Department but have failed to…