Mendoza v. Lynaugh

• Decision Date: 28 April 1993
• Docket Number: No. 92-4533,92-4533
• Citation: 989 F.2d 191
• Parties: Raymundo R. MENDOZA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James A. LYNAUGH, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Page 191

989 F.2d 191

25 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1069

Raymundo R. MENDOZA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James A. LYNAUGH, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 92-4533.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

April 28, 1993.

Raymundo Rodriquez Mendoza, pro se.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

Before, REYNALDO G. GARZA, WILLIAMS and JONES, Circuit Judges.

REYNALDO G. GARZA, Circuit Judge:

The appellant, Raymundo R. Mendoza ("Mendoza"), is a Texas state prisoner. Proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, Mendoza filed an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arguing that his civil rights were violated. The basis of his contentions, which were rooted in his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, were threefold: (i) that he had allegedly received negligent medical treatment; (ii) that prison officials had delayed essential medical treatment that he badly needed; and (iii) certain disciplinary actions were unjustly imposed upon him for his refusal to work. The district court dismissed the prisoner's claims as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Further, the court sanctioned Mendoza under rule 11, requiring him to obtain permission from Chief Judge Robert M. Parker in order to file any suits in the future. We AFFIRM the dismissal of the prisoner's claims under section 1915(d). However, we VACATE the sanction imposed as an abuse of discretion under the facts and circumstances of this case.

FACTS

On March 14, 1980, Mendoza suffered injuries to his cervical and thoracic spine at the Retrieve Unit. Since 1980, his injuries have been treated by various medical personnel provided by the prison. Mendoza alleges that the medical services that were provided to him were negligently performed. On October 23, 1980, Mendoza filed a civil rights claim that alleged substantially the same allegations as currently asserted. Subsequently, all of the plaintiff's civil rights claims were dismissed.

The instant case was filed on May 23, 1991. The case was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3), for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a proposed disposition of the case. On August 7, 1991 The court noted that the statute of limitations in Texas for section 1983 claims is two years. See Ali v. Higgs, 892 F.2d 438, 439 (5th Cir.1990); Burrell v. Newsome, 883 F.2d 416, 419 (5th Cir.1989). Further, accrual begins when the plaintiff has knowledge of the injury that forms the basis of the action. Burrell, 883 F.2d at 418. Therefore, the court found that the vast majority of the plaintiff's claims were time barred because they occurred well before 1989. ² Moreover, the court concluded that the claims arising before 1989 had no basis in law or fact and should be dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). See Wilson v. Lynaugh, 878 F.2d 846, 849 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 969, 110 S.Ct. 417, 107 L.Ed.2d 382 (1989); Pugh v. Parish of St. Tammany, 875 F.2d 436, 438 (5th Cir.1989). ³

                the magistrate conducted a Spears 1 hearing in order to weigh the plaintiff's allegations.   Subsequently, on January 17, 1992, the magistrate issued a report and recommendation
                

The court then focused on the plaintiff's allegations regarding medical treatment that occurred within the two year time horizon. Mendoza testified at the Spears hearing that on or about August 26, 1990, he needed physical therapy and medical treatment because he had a fractured spine. Mendoza's claims stem from the alleged delay of his transfer to a unit where physical therapy was available. He was in fact transferred to the Beto I Unit on July 9, 1991.

The court reasoned that indifference to a prisoner's serious medical needs constitutes an actionable Eighth Amendment violation under Section 1983. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105-07, 97 S.Ct. 285, 291, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976); Jackson v. Cain, 864 F.2d 1235, 1244 (5th Cir.1989). However, in order to maintain a viable claim for delayed medical treatment there must have been deliberate indifference, which results in harm. See, e.g., Wesson v. Oglesby, 910 F.2d 278, 284 (5th Cir.1990) (delay must constitute "deliberate indifference"); see also Shapley v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison Comm'rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir.1985) (delay must result in "substantial harm"). Furthermore, the Section 1983 plaintiff must show that the defendants had a sufficiently culpable state of mind. See Wilson v. Seiter, --- U.S. ----, ----, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 2323, 115 L.Ed.2d 271 (1991) (at a minimum prisoner must allege deliberate indifference to serious medical needs).

The court noted that the medical services that were rendered to Mendoza did not meet any of the above requirements. From medical records the court found that Mendoza received ongoing medical treatment for his back problems. In August of 1989, Dr. Naik recommended that Mendoza should receive a more comfortable brace than the one that he was currently utilizing. The new brace was made available to Mendoza on March 28, 1991. Further, Mendoza was in fact transferred to the Beta I Unit for physical therapy on July 9, 1991.

The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish: (i) deliberate indifference on the part of any of the defendants; and (ii) any resulting substantial harm occasioned by the delay. Further, the court found that plaintiff really complained of negligent treatment. Indeed, Mendoza uses the word "negligent" throughout his briefs. It is clear that negligent medical treatment is not a cognizable basis upon which to predicate a section 1983 action. See Thomas v. Kipperman, 846 F.2d 1009, 1011 (5th Cir.1988); Fielder v. Bosshard, 590 F.2d 105, 107 (5th Cir.1979). Consequently, the court concluded that Mendoza's Plaintiff also alleged that he had been subjected to disciplinary actions for his refusal to work in the garment factory. Further, he alleges that his physical condition prevents him from engaging in any labor and his assignment to the garment factory represents "deliberate indifference" by the defendants. To be sure, if prison officials assign an inmate to work detail and they know that such an assignment could exacerbate a serious physical ailment, then such a decision could constitute deliberate indifference. See Jackson, 864 F.2d at 1246.

negligence claim lacked any basis in light of well established section 1983 jurisprudence.

The court found that the prison officials had placed Mendoza in an appropriate work classification that took into account his physical ailments. ⁴ Additionally, Mendoza had refused to work on the ground that he might have been required to perform work that would aggravate his injuries. The court found these claims to be without an adequate basis in law or fact. Consequently, Mendoza's contentions with regard to the discipline he received were dismissed as frivolous.

After the Spears hearing, the magistrate recommended that all of the plaintiff's claims be dismissed as frivolous, and also imposed sanctions against Mendoza. The court found that Mendoza knew that negligent medical treatment was not an actionable section 1983 violation. The court reasoned that because the plaintiff had waged a second suit based on the same frivolous allegations as he had alleged in his 1980 suit, he had abused the court system. In an effort to prevent such abuse in the future, the magistrate, pursuant to Rule 11, recommended that the plaintiff be required to obtain permission from Chief Judge Robert M. Parker in order to file any claims in the future. Mendoza appealed to the district court.

The district court reviewed the magistrate's report and recommendation. The magistrate's findings were adopted and the court found that all of Mendoza's claims were to be properly dismissed as frivolous. Additionally, the court found that the proposed sanction was appropriate and wholly adopted the magistrate's report and recommendation. Mendoza again appeals.

DISCUSSION

On appeal, we are confronted with the following issues: (i) did the district court err in dismissing appellant's pro se allegations as frivolous; and (ii) did the district court abuse its discretion by imposing rule 11 sanctions for waging a frivolous suit, and if sanctions were warranted, then were the sanctions imposed appropriate under the circumstances.

We find that the district court correctly determined that the plaintiff's allegations were frivolous. Further, we find the imposition of some sanctions may have been warranted. However, we find that the district court abused its discretion because the sanctions that it imposed were too strenuous. Thus, we affirm the section 1915(d) dismissal; however, we vacate the sanction as imposed by the district court.

i. Dismissal of Pro Se Allegations.

The plaintiff's allegations were broken down into three categories by the district court: (a) claims of negligent medical treatment arising prior to May 9, 1989, which were time barred by the two-year statute of limitations; (b) claims of delayed medical treatment arising after May 9, 1989, which were not found to constitute an actionable section 1983 claim; and (c) claims that disciplinary actions imposed for his refusal to work in the garment factory violated his civil rights. The district court forwarded well reasoned dispositions of the above allegations. In the end, the court found that none of the claims had an adequate On appeal, Mendoza raises redundant allegations, which boil down to the above three categories. The district court properly found that Mendoza's claims were frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). This court has held that dismissal of an in forma pauperis suit as frivolous under section 1915(d) is appropriate when: (i) the claim's realistic chance of success is slight; or (ii) the claim has no arguable basis in law or fact. See Wilson v. Lynaugh, 878 F.2d 846, 849 (5th Cir.1989). Moreover, while ...