Opinion
Civil Action 9:23-CV-48
06-01-2023
NICKOLAS WOLFFORD v. POLUNSKY UNIT, ET AL.
INITIAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Zack Hawthorn United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff Nikolas Wolfford, a prisoner confined at the Polunsky Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Polunsky Unit, Melisa Elliott, Paul Reilley, Julie Smitherman, Kenzie Watkins, Nita Neyland, and Falicia R. Burks.
The action was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case.
This Report and Recommendation is limited to the allegations against Defendant Burks and the Polunsky Unit.
Factual Background
Plaintiff alleges he received inadequate treatment for a variety of medical conditions. Plaintiff alleges Defendant Burks, a unit grievance investigator, failed to file his grievances for procedural reasons and did not adequately investigate his claims.
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); 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). 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 (1992).
A complaint does not need detailed factual allegations, but the plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to show more than a speculative right to relief. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Dismissal for failure to state a claim is appropriate if the complaint does not include enough facts to state a claim that is plausible on its face. Id. at 570. Conclusory allegations and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not suffice to prevent dismissal for failure to state a claim. Id. at 555. The plaintiff must plead facts that allow the court to “draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
Analysis
Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 creates a cause of action against any person who, acting under color of state law, causes another to be deprived of a federally protected constitutional right. Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980); Phillips v. Monroe Cnty., 311 F.3d 369, 373 (5th Cir. 2002). Section 1983 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 any 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.
Plaintiff contends Defendant Burks failed to file his grievances, rejected grievances for procedural reasons, and failed to investigate his claims. However, failing to process grievances and investigate an inmate's complaints are not the types of action that rise to the level of a constitutional violation. Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 374 (5th Cir. 2005). Therefore, the claims against Defendant Burks are frivolous and do not state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Plaintiff's claims against the Polunsky Unit must be dismissed because the Texas Department of Criminal Justice is immune from suit. The Eleventh Amendment provides that “[t]he judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State ....” U.S. CONST. Amend. XI. The Eleventh Amendment has been construed to prohibit a citizen of a state from bringing an action in federal court against his own state, or against a state agency or department. Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 98-99 (1984); Williams v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit, 242 F.3d 315, 319 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1042 (2001); Neuwirth v. Louisiana State Bd. of Dentistry, 845 F.2d 553, 555 (5th Cir. 1988). “A plaintiff cannot avoid the sovereign immunity bar by suing a state agency or an arm of the State rather than the State itself.” Richardson v. S. Univ., 118 F.3d 450, 452 (5th Cir. 1997). Because the Texas Department of Criminal Justice is a department of the State of Texas, the Polunsky Unit is immune from suit.
Recommendation
The claims against Defendant Burks and the Polunsky Unit should be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Objections
Within fourteen 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 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 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.