Thomas v. Strack
| Decision Date | 21 April 2023 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 2:22-CV-00170 |
| Parties | JEWELL THOMAS, Plaintiff, v. SVEN STRACK, et al, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Jewell Thomas, appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this prisoner civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that Defendants violated his constitutional rights in several respects, his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A), the Rehabilitation Act (RA), 29 U.S.C. § 794, and the conspiracy laws under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986. Plaintiff's case is subject to screening pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act. See 42 U.S.C § 1997e(c); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Plaintiff has stated, for purposes of screening: (1) Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims against Sven Strack, David Dougherty, and Skinner Sturgis in their individual capacities; and (2) ADA and RA claims against Sven Strack David Dougherty, Skinner Sturgis, Jerry Sanchez, Placido Samaniego, and Bobby Lumpkin in their official capacities. Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that these claims be RETAINED. The undersigned will order service on Defendants. Further, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff's remaining § 1983, § 1985, and § 1986 claims against the remaining Defendants in their individual capacities be DISMISSED with prejudice as frivolous or for failure to state a claim for relief.
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 housed at the McConnell Unit in Beeville, Texas. Plaintiff's allegations in this case arise in connection with his current housing assignment.
In this action, Plaintiff sues the following defendants: Captain Sven Strack (“Captain Strack”); Lieutenant David Dougherty (“Lieutenant Dougherty”); Captain Skinner Sturgis (“Captain Sturgis”); Warden Jerry Sanchez (“Warden Sanchez”); Deputy Warden Placido Samaniego (“Deputy Warden Samaniego”); and TDCJ-CID Director Bobby Lumpkin (“Director Lumpkin”). (Doc. No. 1, pp. 8-9.) Plaintiff generally claims that his constitutional, § 1985, § 1985, and ADA and RA rights were violated in connection with his placement in prehearing detention and confiscation of his personal property. Id. at 13-44. Plaintiff seeks monetary relief. (Doc. No. 1, pp. 10, 45; Doc. No. 10, p. 71.)
The undersigned conducted a Spears[1] hearing in which Plaintiff was given an opportunity to explain his claims. The following representations were made either in Plaintiff's complaint (Doc. No. 1) or at the Spears hearing.
In 1996, Plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident that led to him suffering an open tibia fracture in his left leg and undergoing 12 surgeries. (Doc. No. 10, p. 7.) Plaintiff lost five inches of bone in his left leg, leaving him with what he calls a “leg length discrepancy.” Id. Plaintiff has also been diagnosed with what he terms a “lateral pelvic tilt” due to this leg length discrepancy. Id. As a result, Plaintiff states that he suffers from chronic pain over his entire body. Id. In addition to his physical disabilities, Plaintiff states that he has been diagnosed with major depressive disorder with psychotic features, schizophrenia, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Id. at 7-8.
On February 6, 2022, Plaintiff received a disciplinary case on a charge unrelated to the claims in this case. (Doc. No. 10, p. 19.) As a result of that disciplinary case, Plaintiff was placed in prehearing detention. Id. Plaintiff acknowledged that it was “automatic policy” for inmates placed in prehearing detention to be confined to a cell 24 hours a day. Id. at 17-18.
On February 8, 2022, in the late afternoon, an officer came to Plaintiff's detention cell to collect Plaintiff's food tray. (Doc. No. 10, pp. 8, 10.) Because there was a “great deal of water” in his cell, Plaintiff did not want to step into the water to hand the tray to the officer. Id. Instead, according to Plaintiff, he tossed the tray through the food slot. Id. at 8. Plaintiff testified that the food tray apparently struck the officer's pinkie finger, and so Plaintiff was charged with assaulting an officer. Id. at 8-9.
Plaintiff stated that an unwritten policy existed under which, once an inmate uses state property as a weapon, the inmate's property is subject to being confiscated. (Doc. No. 10, p. 9.) Following the incident with the officer, Captain Strack[2] ordered the confiscation of Plaintiff's property, including his clothes, mattress, and prescribed medications. Id. at 10. Plaintiff testified that Captain Strack was physically present around Plaintiff's cell at the time his property was taken. Id. at 11. According to Plaintiff, an Incident Command System (ICS) was called, requiring Strack's presence at the scene to monitor the situation. Id.
Lieutenant Dougherty,[3] Captain Sturgis, and other correctional officers were also present when the ICS arrived. (Doc. No. 10, p. 12.) Plaintiff testified that after staying for three to four minutes, Captain Sturgis walked away. Id. Captain Strack allegedly instructed Lieutenant Dougherty to confiscate all of Plaintiff's personal property from his cell. Id. at 27-28. Captain Strack allegedly told Plaintiff that he believed Plaintiff deliberately struck the officer with the food tray and that Plaintiff “needed to take [his] punishment like a man.” Id. at 28. The medications allegedly confiscated from Plaintiff consisted of blood pressure, diabetes, cholesterol, acid reflex, and pain medications. Id. at 13. Plaintiff states that he also had certain medical passes taken from him. Id. at 14.
According to Plaintiff, the property taken from him was supposed to be returned seven days later. (Doc. No. 10, p. 15.) Plaintiff, however, did not receive most of his property back until 15 days later, on February 23, 2022. Id. at 14-15. Plaintiff testified at the Spears hearing that he was unable to take medications, other than insulin, during this 15-day period because the officers never gave him back the proper dosage of medications to take. Id. at 15. Plaintiff states that he also had no access to insulin for the seven-day period after February 8, 2022. Id.
During the immediate seven-day period following the February 8, 2022 incident, a “big shield” was placed around Plaintiff's cell door. (Doc. No. 10, p. 15.) During this period, Captain Sturgis ordered Plaintiff to receive a “food loaf” as his meal three times a day. Id. at 16, 38. Plaintiff describes a “food loaf” as “a thin piece of bread, and inside that bread are a bunch of prunes.” Id. Plaintiff stated that he was ordered to be naked for this seven-day period, but was issued a paper gown. Id. at 24. According to Plaintiff, the paper gown was totally destroyed within 24 hours and, despite Plaintiff's request, Plaintiff did not receive a replacement gown. Id. at 24-25. Plaintiff testified that on February 15, 2022, at the end of the seven-day period, the shield was removed and Plaintiff received his clothes back. Id. at 25.
Plaintiff's disciplinary hearing on his assault charge occurred on March 7, 2022. (Doc. No. 10, p. 14.) Before his disciplinary hearing, Plaintiff was ordered to be confined to his cell 24 hours a day. Id. at 17. Overall, Plaintiff was confined in the prehearing detention cell from February 6, 2022 until March 22, 2022. Id. at 19-20.
Plaintiff describes the conditions of his detention cell as having no heat. (Doc. No. 10, p. 20.) Otherwise, the conditions of the detention cell were no different from any other cell. Id. According to Plaintiff, he was only allowed to visit the Medical Department for his insulin injection after the initial seven-day period had passed. Id. at 20.
Captain Strack allegedly told Plaintiff on February 8, 2022, that it would be 30 degrees outside that night. (Doc. No. 10, p. 21.) Plaintiff states that he was unable to sleep that evening due to the cold and the fact his naked body was sitting on a steel bed frame. Id. at 21-22. Plaintiff also testified that he did not have any bedding or a mattress. Id. at 22. During the period when Plaintiff allegedly had no clothes to wear in the cold cell, he had nightmares, racing thoughts, anxiety, and felt depressed. Id. at 23. Because Plaintiff was allegedly forced to stand up most of the time in the cell, he experienced pain throughout his body because of his leg length discrepancy and arthritis condition. Id. Plaintiff was unable to identify any other inmate with disabilities facing disciplinary charges who received more favorable treatment than he received. Id. at 26-27.
Sometime between March 9 and March 22, 2022, Plaintiff was notified that he would be reassigned to Building 8, which housed inmates with the same custody level as Plaintiff. (Doc. No. 10, pp. 19-20.) Plaintiff testified, however, that he refused to leave to Building 8 until March 22, 2022. Id. at 20.
Plaintiff asserts that Captain Strack acted with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical needs because he should have been aware of Plaintiff's open disabilities at the time he ordered the confiscation of Plaintiff's medications and clothes. (Doc. No. 10, pp. 29-30.) Further, Plaintiff alleges that Captain Strack knew that Plaintiff was in pain and needed his pain medication,...
To continue reading
Request your trial