Chapman v. McElwain
| Decision Date | 01 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 2:22-CV-00134 |
| Parties | CALEB AARON CHAPMAN, Plaintiff, v. CONNIE McELWAIN, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Caleb Aaron Chapman, a pretrial detainee appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this prisoner civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff's case is subject to screening pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act. See 42 U.S.C § 1997e(c);[1]28 U.S.C. §§1915(e)(2), 1915A.
For purposes of screening and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1), the undersigned recommends that: (1) Plaintiff's claims seeking monetary and injunctive relief against 156th District Court Judge Johnson in his individual and official capacities be DISMISSED with prejudice because he is entitled to absolute judicial immunity with respect to such claims; and (2) Plaintiff's claims against Bee County Adult Probation Officer Connie McElwain in her individual and official capacities be DISMISSED with prejudice as frivolous and/or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The undersigned further recommends that the dismissal of this case counts as a “strike” against Plaintiff for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).[2]
The Court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This case has been referred to the undersigned magistrate judge for case management and making recommendations on dispositive motions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Plaintiff is a prisoner in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Criminal Institutions Division (TDCJ-CID), and is presently housed at the Kyle Unit in Kyle, Texas. Plaintiff's allegations in this action reference events that occurred while he was confined at the Bee County Jail, which is located in the Southern District of Texas.
On May 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed a different prisoner civil rights complaint, against a Bee County jail medical provider, a Bee County jail nurse, and the Bee County Jail itself. See Chapman v. Bee County Medical Provider, et al., Southern District of Texas Case No. 2:22-cv-117 (“Chapman I”). Plaintiff subsequently filed an amended complaint in Chapman I, naming the following defendants: (1) Mercedita Flynn, a family nurse practitioner (FNP Flynn); (2) Nurse Joyce; (3) Captain Freddie Bullock (Bullock); and (4) Sheriff Anson Southmade (Southmade). See id.
In Chapman I, Plaintiff claimed that he was subjected to discrimination when: (1) he was denied a non-narcotic opiate blocker called named Vivitrol/Naltrexone to help treat his opioid addiction; and (2) another inmate named Abraham Anzoldua was provided with a narcotic medication called “Sybovin.” See id. Plaintiff further claimed that FNP Flynn and Nurse Joyce acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs and that Bullock and Southmade failed to resolve Plaintiff's grievances in his favor. Id.
Upon the filing of Plaintiff's Original Complaint in this action, the Clerk of the Court listed the following defendants on the docket sheet: (1) “Bee County Adult Probation;” and (2) the “Bee County District Judges Office.” In this action, Plaintiff alleges that Connie McElwain from Bee County Adult Probation and 156th District Court Judge Joel Johnson[3] “retaliated” against Plaintiff for filing Chapman I by causing him to be sent to a Substance Abuse Felony Punishment (SAFP) facility. Plaintiff apparently believed that his being sent to the SAFP facility was retaliation because the SAFP facility does not prescribe the medication that Plaintiff asserts he needs for his brain. (Doc. No. 1, pp. 3-4.) Plaintiff does not specify the relief he seeks in his Original Complaint in this case.
On July 28, 2022, the undersigned directed the Clerk of the Court to substitute: (1) Bee County Adult Probation Officer Connie McElwain (Probation Officer McElwain) as a defendant in place of Bee County Adult Probation; and (2) 156th District Court Judge Johnson (Judge Johnson) as a defendant in place of the Bee County District Judges Office. (Doc. No. 11, p. 2.) The undersigned further ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint and present his claims in greater detail against Probation Officer McElwain and Judge Johnson (collectively “Defendants”). Id. at 2-3.
In response to the Court's instruction, Plaintiff has now filed an Amended Complaint against Defendants in their individual and official capacities. (Doc. No. 13.) Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is now the operative pleading in this case. Plaintiff indicates in his Amended Complaint that he has been convicted four times on charges related to opioids or heroin. (Doc. No. 13, p. 7.) Attached to his Amended Complaint are two pages of an affidavit by Probation Officer McElwain, dated April 5, 2022, setting forth Plaintiff's various alleged violations of his community supervision. Id. at 7-8. According to Probation Officer McElwain's affidavit, Plaintiff committed several violations from 2020 through 2022, including possession of a controlled substance, possession of marijuana, failure to report to his “Supervision Officer,” failure to notify the Supervision Department of a change of address in a timely manner, failure to submit to a random urinalysis, failure to pay various fees and fines, and failure to attend Alcoholics/Narcotics Anonymous meetings. Id.
In Chapman I, Plaintiff alleged the following pertinent facts: (1) on February 1, 2022, Dr. Ahoronov prescribed him a non-narcotic medication named Vivitrol/Naltrexone to treat his opioid cravings; (2) Dr. Ahoronov directed Plaintiff to take this medication “all his life” to treat his “opioid disorder/disease,” unless his liver became affected; and (3) on May 4, 2022, Plaintiff was taken into custody at the Bee County Jail. See Chapman, No. 2:22-cv-117. In the Amended Complaint filed in this action, Plaintiff provides the following chronology of events that allegedly occurred after he was taken into custody:
According to Plaintiff, Probation Officer McElwain and Judge Johnson knew at the time of the June 9 court hearing about Plaintiff's opiate addition disease as well as Plaintiff's being treated by Dr. Ahoronov with “specialized treatment medication.” Id. at 5. Despite knowing about Plaintiff's “reckless opiate history in [his] criminal past,” and the importance of taking his “life-saving medication,” Plaintiff claims, Judge Johnson nevertheless ordered Plaintiff to the SAFP facility without his medication. Id.
When a prisoner seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, the court shall evaluate the complaint and dismiss it without service of process if the court finds the complaint frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (). A claim is frivolous if it has no arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A claim has no arguable basis in law if it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, “such as if the complaint alleges the violation of a legal interest which clearly does not exist.” Davis v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1003, 1005 (5th Cir. 1998) (citing McCormick v. Stalder, 105 F.3d 1059, 1061 (5th Cir. 1997)). A claim has no arguable basis in fact if, “after providing the plaintiff the opportunity to present additional facts when necessary, the facts alleged are clearly baseless.” Talib v. Gilley, 138 F.3d 211, 213 (5th Cir. 1998) (citing Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992)).
“In analyzing the complaint, [the court] will accept all well-pleaded facts as true, viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Jones v Greninger, 188 F.3d 322, 324 (5th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (citations omitted). “The issue is not whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail, but whether he is entitled to offer evidence to support his claim. Thus, “the court should not dismiss the claim unless the plaintiff would not be entitled to relief under any set of facts or any possible theory that he could prove consistent with the allegations in the complaint.” Id. (citing Vander Zee v. Reno, 73 F.3d 1365, 1368 (5th Cir. 1996)). ...
To continue reading
Request your trial