Prescott v. Johnson

Decision Date07 March 2022
Docket NumberCivil Action 6:18cv577
PartiesANTHONY PRESCOTT, #2174108, Plaintiff, v. K. JOHNSON, ET AL., Defendants.
CourtUnited States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Court of Eastern District Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Thad Heartfield, United States District Judge.

Plaintiff Anthony Prescott, a prisoner confined in the Coffield Unit of the Texas prison system, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Procedural History and Factual Background

Plaintiff originally filed this action in 2016 in the Eastern District Texas-Sherman Division against multiple defendants. See Prescott v. Denton County, et al., C. A. No. 4:16-cv-879 (Eastern District of Texas-Sherman Division). The Sherman Division allowed Plaintiff to amend his pleadings three times. Plaintiff's third amended complaint, filed in the Eastern District of Texas- Sherman Division on October 31 2018, was forty-two pages long and named over fifty defendants. (Dkt. #2).

On November 5, 2018, the Hon. Kimberly C. Priest-Johnson, United States Magistrate Judge, signed an order of severance and partial transfer (Dkt. #1). The Order severed the case into five separate actions, retaining claims against some defendants and transferring other claims to the Eastern District of Texas-Tyler Division, Western District of Texas-Austin Division, and the Southern District of Texas-Houston and Galveston Divisions.

This severed action involves Plaintiff's claims against multiple defendants at the Gurney and Coffield Units. The fifth Amended Complaint (Dkt. #34) is the live pleading in the action before the Court. An amended complaint supersedes and takes the place of a previous complaint filed in a case. Clark v. Tarrant Cnty., Tex., 798 F.2d 736, 740 (5th Cir. 1986).

In the fifth Amended Complaint, Plaintiff also sued four inmate defendants, Cory McCowan, Joel Fuentez, Shaucey Franklin, and Nicholas Renner, in addition to fifteen state employees. On March 4, 2020, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's claims against inmate defendants McCowan, Fuentez, Franklin, and Renner with prejudice for the failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). (Dkt. ##41, 51).

On February 11, 2020, the Court ordered the Office of the Attorney General of Texas to file a report addressing Plaintiff's deliberate indifference to his health and safety claims, in accordance with Martinez v. Aaron 570 F.2d 317 (10th Cir. 1978) (cited with approval in Parker v. Carpenter, 978 F.2d 190, 191-92 (5th Cir. 1992)). (Dkt. #43). The Office of the Attorney General filed the Martinez Report on May 13, 2020. (Dkt. #60). Plaintiff filed a response to the Martinez Report on June 19, 2020. (Dkt. #66).

On February 11, 2020, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a More Definite Statement regarding certain claims. (Dkt. #42). Plaintiff filed his response to the Order for a More Definite Statement on March 25, 2020. (Dkt. #54). The Court considers Plaintiff's response to the More Definite Statement as a supplement to his amended response. See Spivey v Robertson, 197 F.3d 772, 774 (5th Cir. 1999) (holding that a court is limited to a consideration of the well-pleaded allegations of Plaintiff's complaint, including any attachments thereto or documents incorporated by reference therein); Wright v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., 2014 WL 11456816 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 16, 2014). Plaintiff has been allowed to be fully heard on his claims.

Plaintiff's Claims

In his fifth Amended Complaint, Plaintiff claimed that four inmate kitchen workers-all housed at the Coffield Unit-placed a harmful substance into Plaintiff's food, without warning to him. The four inmate kitchen workers were dismissed, with prejudice, as Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted regarding these workers. (Dkt. ##41, 51). Plaintiff's statutory and constitutional claims mostly stem from Plaintiff's belief that his food has been tampered with on multiple occasions at different TDCJ units and form the basis of his Eight Amendment claims.[1] Plaintiff also raises claims regarding the American with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, access to courts, and the denial of due process and equal protection of the law.

Plaintiff specifically alleges that Defendants failed to train, supervise, or promulgate policies to prevent the contamination of his food through the Food Services Department at the Gurney and Coffield Units. Plaintiff also claims that he received tainted or contaminated food from the Commissary Department at both the Gurney and Coffield Units. He further contends that Defendants engaged in a conspiracy to contaminate his food. He alleges that his personal mail has been tampered with by prison officials.

Plaintiff sued the following Gurney Unit prison employees: (1) Food Service Manager (FSM) K. Johnson, (2) Warden Stuart Calhoun, and (3) Sgt. Cabrea for various statutory and constitutional claims. Plaintiff states that he was at the Gurney Unit from January 25, 2018, to February 12, 2018. (Dkt. #54, p. 2).

Plaintiff also sued the following Coffield Unit prison employees: (4) Assistant Warden Michael Britt, (5) Assistant Warden Todd K. Funai, (6) Assistant Warden Ernest Navarrette, (7) Sgt. Danny Jackson, (8) Lt. Christal Meador, (9) Correctional Officer Tony Dew, (10) Sgt. Lowrey Davis, (11) Correctional Officer Donald Lee, (12) FSM Steven Farris, (13) Kitchen Officer Dennis Nash, (14) Correctional Officer Arthur Thomas, and (15) Law Librarian Gaye Karriker for various statutory and constitutional claims. He was at the Coffield Unit from March 3, 2018 (Dkt. #54, p. 2), to the filing of his Third Amended Complaint on or about October 31, 2018. (Dkt. #2).

Plaintiff specifically asserts that he is bringing claims under the First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Eighth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, the American Against Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) and (3), and 42 U.S.C. § 1986. Plaintiff's complaints range in time from the date that he was housed at the Gurney Unit, January 25, 2018, to February 12, 2018, and was housed at the Coffield Unit from March 3, 2018, to October 31, 2018, the date this lawsuit was created with his Third Amended Complaint. (Dkt. ##1, 2).

Plaintiff states that he is suing all Defendants in their official and individual capacities. He seeks $80 million in compensatory damages. He also requests punitive damages. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction in the form of the Defendants being ordered to:

(1) cease and desist all forms of use of force, any involuntary expose to any form of chemical substance whether legal or illegal, toxic or natural, which has been utilized or has the potential to be utilized against Plaintiff to intentionally or inadvertently cause harm for any purpose including retaliatory conduct, any form of unlawful reprisal to antagonize, irritate, conceal aggression, or hostility in the furtherance of any personal vendetta, official or unofficial policy, custom, or use or practice,
(2) take every measure to protect Plaintiff from targeted hostility of officers and inmates that might result in attack in any form, correct erroneous application of written regulations contrary to ensuring inmate safety,
(3) cease and desist from all unwarranted intrusions into Plaintiff's correspondence, including but not limited to unnecessary inspections, unauthorized tampering, manipulation, removal or theft of Plaintiff's documents, personal property, cease and desist any knowledgeable concealment or distraction or removal of prison records that would be included in pending litigation,
(4) facilitate direct transportation to all aid from all outside appointments with medical specialist without a layover at any unit,
(5) cease and desist from all forms of dissemination of Plaintiff's personal and private communication and litigation efforts, cease, and desist from unauthorized surveillance of Plaintiff,
(6) cease and desist from all forms of harassment, in person or electronic, direct, or indirect, overt, or covert.

(Dkt. #34, p. 33).

Preliminary Screening

Plaintiff is an inmate in the Texas prison system who has been permitted to proceed in forma pauperis. As a prisoner seeking redress from an officer or employee of a governmental entity, Plaintiff's complaint is subject to preliminary screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. See Martin v. Scott, 156 F.3d 578, 579-80 (5th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). Because he is proceeding in forma pauperis, his complaint is also subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Both § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b) provide for sua sponte dismissal of the complaint, or any portion thereof, if the Court finds it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. Samford v. Dretke, 562 F.3d 674, 678 (5th Cir. 2009).

A complaint is frivolous when it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A claim lacks an arguable basis in law when it is “based on an indisputably meritless legal theory.” Id. at 327. A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted when it fails to plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); accord Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 566 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 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.” Rogers v. Boatright, 709 F.3d 403, 407 (5th Cir. 2013) (internal...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT