Trevino v. Woodbury Cnty. Jail
| Decision Date | 07 January 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. C14-4051-MWB,C14-4051-MWB |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
| Parties | RICHARD TREVINO, Plaintiff, v. WOODBURY COUNTY JAIL, LIEUTENANT PHILLIPS, CARLOS LNU, UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE, Defendants. |
Plaintiff Richard Trevino (Trevino) commenced this lawsuit in the Northern District of Texas on June 25, 2014. His pro se complaint (Doc. No. 2) and addendum (Doc. No. 7) name as defendants the Woodbury County Jail (Jail), Lieutenant Phillips (Phillips), Officer Carlos Last Name Unknown (Carlos) and the United States Marshals Service (USMS). Trevino claims that his constitutional rights were violated while he was incarcerated at the Jail and further contends that the defendants violated Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12133.1 He seeks compensatory and punitive damages.
The case was transferred to the Northern District of Iowa on July 1, 2014. Doc. No. 6. On October 17, 2014, USMS filed a motion (Doc. No. 11) to dismiss in which it requests dismissal of all claims against it. Trevino did not file a resistance.2
The Honorable Mark W. Bennett has referred USMS's motion to dismiss to me for the preparation of a report and recommended disposition. No party has requested oral argument and, in any event, I find that oral argument is not necessary. See N.D. Ia. L.R. 7(c). The motion is now fully submitted.
Trevino alleges the following facts:
On September 10, 2012, USMS transported Trevino to the Jail for confinement after he was charged in the Northern District of Iowa with conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.3 Trevino was housed at the Jail from September 10, 2012, until February 25, 2014. Throughout this time, he suffered from a spinal disease that confined him to a wheelchair and also caused incontinence, thus requiring his use of diapers.
The USMS Deputy who escorted Trevino to the Jail forcibly removed his religious jewelry and threw it into the garbage, along with Trevino's legal paperwork. Once at the Jail, due to the lack of handicap accessible or suitable facilities, Trevino was placed in solitary confinement. The furniture in his cell was inadequate for an inmate with significant physical disabilities. The bed had no guard rails to prevent him from falling, nor did it have a "jungle gym" apparatus to enable him to independently transport himselfto and from his wheelchair. Thus, he had to rely on Jail staff to move him. Further, the toilet in his cell did not have guard rails to help him transfer himself onto the toilet or balance once there, effectively depriving him from using the toilet without assistance. The showers at the Jail did not have a seat, railing or other handicap accommodations. Nor were there secured chairs, benches, tables or furniture that Trevino could use.
Trevino's cell did not have an emergency call button, meaning that in order for Trevino to receive assistance he had to yell for help. Jail staff generally ignored him and then only responded after multiple requests for help. Eventually, when Jail staff did communicate with him or come to assist him, Trevino was harassed and his special needs were disregarded. Specifically, Jail staff refused to give him clean clothes or showers for a week at a time and failed to provide a sealed container in the cell for his soiled diapers. Trevino was forced to pile the soiled diapers in the corner of his cell which created a stench that other inmates and Jail staff could smell. Jail staff, including Carlos and a nurse, made negative remarks about the stench, causing Trevino embarrassment.
Trevino was not allowed contact with other inmates and was generally isolated from others because of his disability. He was denied access to the same programs as other inmates and was not allowed to communicate with them. He was not placed in general population, despite the fact that his disabilities did not pose a security risk or danger. Additionally, Trevino's mother passed away while he was confined and he was denied clergy or proper grief counseling for over four months.
As a result of his isolation, Trevino became depressed and intentionally cut himself. He was then placed in an unclean rubber-padded cell and was provided only a mat and blanket. Despite being in USMS custody, Trevino rarely spoke with USMS employees and saw them only when being transported to court hearings.
Defendant USMS raises the following arguments in requesting dismissal:
The first argument arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The other arguments are made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). I will address each separately.
28 U.S.C. § 1915 governs lawsuits filed by prisoners in forma pauperis. It states, in relevant part, that "the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that... the action or appeal is frivolous or malicious." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). An action is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); see also Schon v. Schumacher, No. C13-4049-MWB, 2013 WL 3479417, at *1-2 (N.D. Iowa July 11, 2013). Frivolousness, when applied to a complaint, embraces both inarguable legal conclusions and fanciful factual allegations. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325.
Section 1915 is designed largely to discourage the waste of judicial and private resources on baseless lawsuits that paying litigants generally do not initiate because of the cost and threat of sanctions under Rule 11. Id. at 327. The statute gives courts the "authority to not only dismiss a claim based on an indisputably meritless legal theory,but also the power to pierce the veil of the complaint's factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless." Id.
Examples of the factual frivolousness class are claims describing fantastic, fanciful or delusional scenarios. Id. at 325, 328. The Supreme Court has noted:
As those words suggest, a finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them. An in forma pauperis complaint may not be dismissed, however, simply because the court finds the plaintiff's allegations unlikely. Some improbable allegations might properly be disposed of on summary judgment, but to dismiss them as frivolous without any factual development is to disregard the age-old insight that many allegation might be "strange, but true; for truth is always strange, Stranger than fiction." Lord Byron, Don Juan, canto XIV, stanza 101 .
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). The complaint's factual allegations must be weighed in favor of the plaintiff. Id. at 32. However, a court is not bound, as it usually is when making a determination based solely on the pleadings, to accept without question the truth of the plaintiff's allegations. Id.
Examples of the legal frivolousness class are claims against which it is clear that the defendants are immune from suit. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. However, a complaint is not automatically frivolous within the meaning of Section 1915(d) because it fails to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule 12(b)(6). Id. at 326-328, 331. A complaint filed in forma pauperis which fails to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) may nonetheless have "an arguable basis in law" precluding dismissal under Section 1915(d). Id. at 328. Section 1915 refers to a more limited set of claims than Rule 12(b)(6). Id. at 329. Congress's over-arching goal in enacting the pro se statute was to assure equality of consideration for all litigants. Id. at 329 (citing Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 447 (1962)). To conflate the standards of frivolousness and failure to state a claim, would thus deny indigent plaintiffs the practical protections against unwarranted dismissal generally accorded paying plaintiffs under the Federal Rules. Id. at 330.
On August 28, 2014, I entered an initial review order (Doc. No. 8) that included the following finding:
It appears unlikely that the plaintiff states a viable constitutional claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against any of the named defendants. See Alexander v. Hedback, 718 F.3d 762, 765-67 (8th Cir. 2013). Nevertheless, the court is unable to determine as a matter of law whether the plaintiff's complaint is frivolous, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Consequently, the court is of the opinion that the matter is best addressed after receipt of an answer or any dispositive motion deemed appropriate. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Money v. Moore, 877 F.2d 9, 10 (8th Cir. 1989).
Doc. No. 8 at 2-3. Having reviewed USMS's arguments, I conclude that my prior finding still holds true. As I will discuss further, infra, Trevino's claims - as asserted against USMS - ultimately fail. This does not mean, however, that the entire complaint should be dismissed as a frivolous filing under Section 1915. Other defendants are named, as well. They have not sought dismissal on grounds that Trevino's claims against them are frivolous but, instead, have filed a separate motion (Doc. No. 12) for summary judgment in which they...
To continue reading
Request your trial