Estrada v. Nehls
| Citation | 524 F.Supp.3d 578 |
| Decision Date | 09 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. H-19-3883 |
| Parties | Patricio ESTRADA, Plaintiff, v. Troy NEHLS, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
Patricio Estrada, Richmond, TX, Pro Se.
Justin Carl Pfeiffer, Fort Bend County Attorney's Office, Richmond, TX, for Defendants Troy Nehls, Sgt. Pale, Officer Owens, Deputy Erivo, Deputy Lilly.
Amber Rochelle Pickett, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, Dallas, TX, for Defendants Correct Care Solutions, LLC, Nurse Shirley Rabius.
Plaintiff Patricio Estrada (Fort Bend Inmate #P00095638; TDCJ #02089041) is currently confined in Fort Bend County Jail ("Jail").1 He alleges that in October and November 2018, officials at the Jail failed to protect him from another inmate, denied him medical treatment in connection with a fight he had with that inmate, and violated his constitutional rights in connection with his disciplinary case and placement in administrative segregation. Estrada filed an Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 10) and a More Definite Statement (Doc. No. 19), which constitute the live pleadings in this case.2 Because he is an inmate who proceeds in forma pauperis , the Court is required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (the "PLRA") to scrutinize the complaint and dismiss the case, in whole or in part, if it determines that the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) ; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Estrada names the following defendants in his live pleadings: Fort Bend County Sheriff Troy Nehls ("Nehls"), Sergeant William Pailes ("Pailes"), Deputy Chris Owens ("Owens"), Deputy Richard Erivo ("Erivo"), and Deputy Connie Lilly ("Lilly" and collectively, the "County Defendants"); and medical defendants Nurse Shirley Rabius ("Rabius"), Dr. Khan, and Correct Care Solutions, LLC ("CCS"). The County Defendants filed a motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 32), and Rabius and CCS filed a motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 59). Dr. Khan has not been served and has not appeared in this case. The Court has carefully considered the pleadings, pending motions, responses, reply, evidence in the record for the summary judgment motion, and the applicable law and concludes as follows.
Estrada alleges that prior to October 27, 2018, he made several complaints against fellow inmate Mike Atkinson ("Atkinson") concerning continuous threats, racial comments, and extortion, but Jail Classification ignored his notification of conflicts. Doc. No. 10 at 4. Estrada further alleges that he filed several grievances regarding his fears of possible physical harm and requested to be separated from Atkinson, but Erivo, who responded to his grievances, denied them because Estrada raised non-grievable issues. Id. In particular, Estrada complained that Atkinson would: store food for days before heating and eating it, causing gnats and a bad odor in the dorm; extort people and threaten them regarding the use of the television and racial issues; use the fresh wash cloths that were for cleaning the dorm to wipe off his sweat and then throw them back on the table, causing a sanitation issue; and dip the mop in the toilet and wipe it on the sink that they used for drinking water. Doc. No. 19 at 8. Estrada asserts that the sanitation issues constituted a threat and that Atkinson allegedly stated that the Mexicans needed to drink water from the side of the sink where he used the mop and if they drank from the other side he would "f**k them up." Id. at 9. Estrada also alleges that Atkinson said that if any of the Mexicans want to change the television channel, they would have to pay or watch the channel that the others had on. Id. Estrada claims that "[a]lthough I was born in the United States and am only half hispanic," Atkinson allegedly stated that "they should have killed all your people at the border, don't think because you[’re] in jail that can't happen." Id. On October 26, 2018, in response to Estrada's grievances and complaints about conflicts in the dorm, Jail officials moved the inmate from bunk 20, who Estrada claims was Atkinson's "partner in threatening everyone and controlling the dorm," away from Atkinson and Estrada. Id. Estrada alleges that moving this other inmate created a reason for Atkinson to attack him the next day. Id.
Estrada alleges that on October 27, 2018, Atkinson came into the dorm after recreation, wiped the sweat off his face with a towel, and threw the towel on the table where Estrada sat. Id. Estrada told him that he needed to stop disrespecting everyone and pick up after himself. Id. at 10. Estrada got up from the table to file another grievance, but Atkinson stated that he does not take orders from a "damn Mexican" and asked Estrada "what are you going to do about it, snitch on me?" Id. Estrada alleges that Atkinson started swinging at him. He claims that Atkinson punched him, slammed him on his back, and caused his head to hit a bench. Doc. No. 10 at 5.
Estrada claims that immediately after the altercation with Atkinson, Defendants Owens and Pailes were the first officers to arrive on the scene to help Officer Serna. Doc. No. 19 at 3. Estrada alleges that Owens picked him up off the floor, handcuffed him, pushed him out of the dorm, and took him to administrative segregation or "lock-up." Id. Estrada claims that Owens and Pailes did not take him to the infirmary, but a nurse came to the 6th floor to look at his scrapes and bruises. Id. He discloses that he was not bleeding as a result of the altercation and was able to walk to segregation, but was in pain from the fight in his spine, leg, and ribs. Id. at 10. He alleges that Owens told the nurse who came to evaluate him that his breathing problems were the result of the adrenaline from the fight and that he was not hurt badly. Id. at 11. Estrada alleges that Pailes and Owens allowed Atkinson to receive adequate medical care by allowing him to go to the infirmary but that Estrada was sent to administrative segregation and only received a visit from the nurse. He also complains that Pailes and Owens ordered him to be placed in lock-up, whereas Atkinson was allowed to remain in the dorm without punishment prior to a disciplinary hearing. Doc. No. 10 at 6. He alleges that he remained in lock-up for about 16 days, some of which was served before he had a hearing in his disciplinary case. Doc. No. 19 at 11. He claims that Sheriff Nehls's policy of placing inmates in segregation prior to conviction on disciplinary charges violated his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 2.
Estrada alleges further that while he was in lock-up, Pailes searched his property and confiscated his second mattress that the medical department issued him to help with a pre-existing back injury from being run over by a vehicle in 2012. Doc. No. 19 at 3. He claims that he subsequently asked Rabius for another mat, but that she refused and commented that if he could fight, he was not in a lot of pain and did not need another mattress or more pain medication. Id. at 4-5. He asserts that Rabius's refusal to provide him a second mattress violated his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Id. He further alleges that Rabius's refusal to allow him to see a "licensed medical doctor" when he requested one violated his rights under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 et seq. ("ADA"). Id. at 5. He also generally alleges that all defendants violated the ADA regarding his treatment at the Jail. Id. at 6.
Estrada further alleges that, while he was in lock-up from October 27 to about November 12, 2018, the kiosk for filing grievances, sick calls, and requests for correspondence materials and hygiene products was not working properly to accept his requests. He alleges that Sheriff Nehls implemented a "policy" not to repair the kiosk and that Nehls "is legally responsible for the overall operation of the Fort Bend County Sheriff's Office." Doc. No. 19 at 2. He alleges that the lack of a working kiosk violated his constitutional rights because he was not able to petition for redress of grievances, obtain necessary supplies, or seek medical attention for the 16 days he was in segregation. Id.
Estrada alleges that at his disciplinary hearing on November 2, 2018, Defendant Lilly made biased accusations and a prejudgment statement insinuating that if he was the one placed in administrative segregation, he must be the one the officers found to be guilty of starting the problem. Id. at 5; Doc. No. 10 at 6. He alleges that Lilly's comments and lack of an adequate investigation violated his due process and equal protection rights. Doc. No. 19 at 5. Estrada claims that on November 5, 2018, Lilly and Erivo signed off on a disciplinary report stating that they interviewed witnesses, found Estrada guilty of assault, and sentenced him to 15 days in lock-up without completing the disciplinary hearing process. Id. ; Doc. No. 10 at 7. Estrada alleges that the disciplinary conviction report is false and biased because the only person interviewed regarding his disciplinary case was a friend of Atkinson's. Doc. No. 10 at 7.
He further alleges that medical defendants Dr. Khan, Rabius, and CCS were medically negligent and deliberately indifferent to his medical needs in the aftermath of the October 27, 2018 incident. Although he reports that a nurse came to his floor to check on him right after the incident, he alleges that the evaluation was inadequate because she just checked for scratches and bruises and left. The medical records reflect that Paula Quinn, RN, was the nurse who came to check on him on October 27, 2018. Doc. No. 59-8 (APP 529).3 He alleges that, in response to a request from the staff for medical attention for him, Rabius came to lock-up and denied him medical...
To continue reading
Request your trial