Spears v. McCotter, 83-2623
| Decision Date | 03 July 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-2623,83-2623 |
| Parties | Norman R. SPEARS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. O.L. McCOTTER, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
David D. Sterling, Houston, Tex., (Court Appointed-Not Under Act), for plaintiff-appellant.
Jim Mattox, Atty. Gen., J.D. Hooper, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, Tex., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
Before BROWN, POLITZ and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.
This civil rights complaint by a prisoner inexorably directs our consideration of questions of court administration and the scope of one of the provisions of the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(b)(1). Norman R. Spears invoked 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 and filed a pro se complaint against the director and several employees of the Texas Department of Corrections, alleging that he had been subjected to cruel and unusual punishment by being required to perform work beyond his physical capacity, and that his medical needs had not received proper attention. Both Spears and the appellees demanded a jury trial. The case was referred to a United States Magistrate for an evidentiary hearing, without a jury, after which the magistrate recommended that the case be dismissed. The district court adopted the magistrate's recommendation and dismissed the suit. We perceive no difficulty with the magistrate conducting a hearing to determine the specificity of Spears' claim leading to a recommendation of dismissal of the defined claim as frivolous. Finding that dismissal fully justified, we affirm.
Spears objects to the magistrate's evidentiary hearing on grounds that the magistrate decided the case on its merits in contravention of his jury demand. Spears relies in part on our statement in Ford v. Estelle, 740 F.2d 374, 380 (5th Cir.1984), where we stated that "[s]ection 636(b)'s provision for reference of 'conditions of confinement' petitions must be limited to authorize designation of magistrates to hold evidentiary hearings only for the determination of nonjury issues." That statement assumes, however, a case in which we are presented with a discernible and critical question of fact. If a prisoner's petition relating to conditions of confinement contains only conclusionary allegations, notwithstanding a timely prayer for a jury trial reference to a magistrate to determine the factual basis of such allegations may be proper. Thus, if a prisoner's section 1983 petition alleges gross inadequacy of attention to his serious medical needs, he has alleged a factual issue, albeit in the form of a conclusion. It would be inappropriate to refer that case to a magistrate for a trial over the prisoner's objections. But the trial court may refer the case to a magistrate to dig beneath the conclusional allegations; to reduce the level of abstraction upon which the claims rest; to ascertain exactly what scenario the prisoner claims occurred, as well as the legal basis for the claim. We find support for reference to magistrates in such situations.
The magistrate properly may be asked by the district court to investigate whether a prisoner's motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis should be denied on grounds of frivolity. 1 See 28 U.S.C Sec. 1915(d). Such motions should be denied as frivolous where the legal points lack arguable merit. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). To determine whether a complaint is frivolous under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(d), 2 the court must inquire whether there is an arguable "factual and legal basis, of constitutional dimension, for the asserted wrong." Watson v. Ault, 525 F.2d 886, 892 (5th Cir.1976). This inquiry perforce involves focusing precisely on a prisoner's factual allegations, puncturing the conclusion balloon in which they may at first be lodged.
The facts of this case pointedly illustrate the imperative of requiring greater specificity from prisoners who allege constitutional deprivations. Spears was dissatisfied with the medical treatment he received for about a year, beginning in the summer of 1980 when he first entered the Texas Department of Corrections. His testimony before the magistrate reflected that he was given progressively lighter work duties because of his complaints, and that finally, on July 10, 1981, he was withdrawn from assignment to any work whatever. Moreover, during that period he was examined by no fewer than five doctors, x-rayed three times, and was seen more than 40 times by TDC medical personnel. The magistrate concluded that Spears' claim of "deliberate indifference to his medical needs" meant merely that he disagreed with his doctors and was unhappy with the results of his medical treatment. We join the district court and the magistrate in viewing that as the essence of Spears' complaint.
We have stated that a district court need not specifically term a prisoner's suit "frivolous" to merit dismissal under Sec. 1915(d). The word contains no magic legal elixir:
The district court did not expressly state that Irving's claims were "frivolous." However, since the court could not determine the merits of Irving's complaint prior to service without concluding that the complaint was "frivolous" under Sec. 1915(d), we treat the court's conclusion as a Sec. 1915(d) determination. 3
Irving v. Thigpen, 732 F.2d 1215, 1216 n. 2 (5th Cir.1984). Stripping this record to legal essentials, we perceive that the district court referred this case to the magistrate for disposition, including, upon the development of Spears' claim, use of the authority vested by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(d) to recommend that Spears be denied pauper status if his suit be found frivolous.
We believe other grounds would support reference for a Sec. 1915(d) determination. For a number of years the courts have used questionnaires to assist trial judges to bring into focus the factual and legal bases of prisoners' claims. We have referred to such questionnaires as being "in the nature of a motion for more...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lee v. Driskel, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-874-P
...or after answers have been filed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e); Green v. McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1116, 1119 (5th Cir. 1986); Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179, 181 (5th Cir. 1985). District courts are vested with extremely broad discretion in making a determination of whether an IFP proceeding is friv......
-
Douglas v. Gusman
...via TTY,1 and Monique Morial, counsel for defendants. Plaintiff was sworn and testified for all purposes permitted by Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir.1985), and its THE RECORD Douglas testified that he is currently incarcerated in the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola based o......
-
Rodriguez v. Bexar Cnty. Hosp. Dist.
...relies is indisputably meritless); Davis v. Scott, 157 F.3d at 1005, (holding the Magistrate had no duty to ask specific questions during a Spears hearing and that the plaintiff remains master of his complaint and is responsible for articulating the facts that give rise to a cognizable clai......
-
Neitzke v. Williams
...denied, 469 U.S. 1127, 105 S.Ct. 811, 83 L.Ed.2d 804 (1985), with Harris v. Menendez, 817 F.2d 737, 740 (CA11 1987); Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179, 182 (CA5 1985); Franklin, supra, at 1227; Malone v. Colyer, 710 F.2d 258, 261 (CA6 1983). 4 See, e.g., Catz & Guyer, Federal In Forma Pauper......