Breidel v. Harris Cnty. Sheriff's Office, CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:13-CV-23

• Decision Date: 06 August 2014
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:13-CV-23
• Parties: MICHAEL BREIDEL, Plaintiff, v. HARRIS COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, et al, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas

MICHAEL BREIDEL, Plaintiff,
v.
HARRIS COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, et al, Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:13-CV-23

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

August 6, 2014

OPINION AND ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant McLennan County, Texas's Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue, Alternative Motion to Transfer Venue, and Alternative Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Doc. 9). Also pending before the Court is Defendant Harris County, Texas's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 16) and Motion to Strike (Doc. 21), and McLennan County's Motion for Summary Judgment, Subject to its Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 18). Having considered the motions, the responses, the replies, and the applicable law, the Court concludes that McLennan County's motion to dismiss should be denied and both Harris County's and McLennan County's motions for summary judgment should be granted.

I. Background

Plaintiff Michael Breidel filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Harris County, Texas, Harris County Sheriff's Office, Extradition Transport Services, John Does 1 and 2 (employees of Extradition Transport Services), McLennan County Sheriff's Office, McLennan County, Texas, and John Doe, M.D., a doctor purported to work for McLennan County, Texas (collectively, "Defendants"). Compl., Doc. 1. The basic allegation underlying Briedel's complaint is that he was denied post-surgical medical care during his

Page 2

detention in the McLennan and Harris County Jails.

In his complaint, which reads more like a diary than a pleading, Breidel describes the following events which gave rise to his claims: He was arrested under a capias warrant by the McLennan County Sheriff's Department on January 4, 2011,¹ six weeks after having cervical spinal fusion surgery. First Am. Compl., Doc. 5 at 2. At the time of his arrest, Breidel informed the arresting officers that he was under post-surgical care and brought with him his medication, a "bone stimulator," and a neck brace. Id. During the course of his ten-day stay at the McLennan County Jail, he was sporadically denied medication, suffered neck pain and muscle spasms, was forced to sleep on a one-inch thick mattress on a steel frame, and was unable to sleep. Id. at 2-3. He, however, was allowed to wear his neck brace and, at times, his bone stimulator. Id. at 2. Breidel was also seen by John Doe, M.D. at least twice and spent the majority of his stay in medical segregation. Id. at 2-3. According to Breidel, John Doe, M.D. ignored his surgeon's "protocol for pain management" and informed Breidel that he would not be able to receive his prescriptions for Vicodin or Ambien, as they are controlled substances at the jail. Id. at 2.

On January 14, the eleventh day of his detention, Breidel was transported by Extradition Transport Services in a van from McLennan County Jail in Waco, Texas to Harris County Jail in Houston, Texas. Id. at 2-3. Breidel was permitted to wear his bone stimulator and neck brace for the duration of his transport, which he claims lasted approximately twenty-four hours, but he was in constant pain. Id. He was given a dose of paid medication midway through the trip, but he complains that Extradition's employees, John Does 1 and 2, were insensitive to his medical condition and unresponsive to his requests for addition pain medication and breaks. Id. at 2-3.

On January 15, 2011, Breidel arrived at Harris County Jail. Breidel complains that

Page 3

during the course of his five-day stay at Harris County Jail he was strip-searched, was forced to sleep without a mattress for one night, was occasionally denied medication and/or his bone stimulator, endured severe paid, was unable to sleep, and got into a physical altercation with another inmate. Id. at 6-7. According to his complaint, the other inmate "jumped up and grabbed [Breidel] by the [neck] brace at the throat area, pulled on [his] brace and swung at [his] head. [Breidel] grabbed a handful of [the inmate's] hair and hit him three times real quick. [The inmate] went down, holding his mouth and said 'enough, enough.'" Id. at 6.

Breidel also complains generally about the poor conditions and poor treatment of inmates at Harris County Jail. Id. He states that upon his arrival, he was held in a "cell tank" with approximately 60-80 other inmates where he witnessed the rape of another inmate. Id. at 5. Later that day, while being held in another cell tank with approximately 40 other inmates, he witnessed an inmate die during an epileptic episode after his cries for his "shot and medicine" were ignored by the guards. Id. While at the Harris County Jail, Breidel was seen by a physician and a psychiatrist. Id. at 6. The physician gave Breidel Vicodin for his pain and the psychiatrist gave him a prescription for sleep and another for anxiety. Id. He also received one dose of all of his previously prescribed medications. Id. Breidel was released on January 19, 2011 after posting bond. Id. at 8; Court Docs. in Case No. 2004-29324, Doc. 16, Ex. B at 4.

Breidel alleges that all Defendants violated his constitutional rights by using excessive force against him, failing to protect him, and making "unreasonable use of search and seizure." Doc. 5 at 8. Breidel also alleges that Defendant John Doe M.D. "acted with gross negligence under color of law in depriving Breidel of his needed and prescribed medications." Id. He contends that both of the Defendant Counties, by and through their respective Sheriff's Offices, have a notable history of detainee/prisoner abuse. Id. He claims that as a result of the denial of

Page 4

his post-surgical medical care, he was required to undergo additional spinal injections, physical therapy, and spinal lumbar surgery. Id. Additionally, he claims that he now suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder. Id. He requests damages for pain and injury, loss of income, loss of future income, medical expenses, punitive damages, and attorney's fees in an amount not less than $623,234.00. Id. at 8-9.

II. McLennan County's Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue

Defendant McLennan County moves to dismiss Breidel's claims against it pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3) for improper venue. In the alternative, McLennan County argues that the Court should sever and transfer the action against it to the Western District of Texas pursuant to Rule 21, which allows a court to sua sponte sever any claim against a party.

A defendant may move to dismiss an action based on improper venue pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3). FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(3). Once a defendant challenges venue, the plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating that the chosen venue is proper. Am. Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. Rasche, 273 F.R.D. 391, 396 (S.D. Tex. 2011) (citation omitted). "On a Rule 12(b)(3) motion to dismiss for improper venue, the court must accept as true all allegations in the complaint and resolve all conflicts in favor of the plaintiff." Braspetro Oil Servs. v. Modec (USA), Inc., 240 F. App'x. 612, 615 (5th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (citations omitted). If venue is improper, 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) instructs courts to "dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). The decision to dismiss or transfer a case lies within the court's discretion. AllChem Performance Prods., Inc. v. Aqualine Warehouse, LLC, 878 F. Supp. 2d 779, 788 (S.D. Tex. 2012) (citing Dublin v. United States, 380 F.2d 813, 815 (5th Cir. 1967)).

Page 5

Since 42 U.S.C. § 1983 contains no specific venue provision, venue in this case is determined under the general venue state, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), which provides:

A civil action may be brought in—(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred...; or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.

Breidel argues that venue is proper in the Southern District of Texas under subsection (b)(1) since Defendants Harris County Sheriff's Office and Harris County reside in the Southern District of Texas and all named Defendants are residents of Texas. Doc. 14 at 1-2.

McLennan County claims that venue in the Southern District is improper because Breidel's claims against it are unrelated to his claims against the Harris County Defendants and do not arise from actions or omissions in this district. Doc. 9 ¶ 1.3-1.5. It argues that Breidel's claims against the two counties involve different actors and allegations and took place in different districts. Id. As such, it argues that it is improperly joined under Rule 20(a)(2), which governs permissive joinder of defendants.

Rule 20(a)(2) provides:

"Persons...may be joined in one action as defendants if:

(A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transaction or occurrences; and

(B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.

...