Cadenhead v. Collin Cnty. Det. Facility

1

CECIL ALLEN RUSTY CADENHEAD, #02399656 v. COLLIN CNTY. DETENTION FACILITY, ET AL.

Civil Action No. 4:22cv596

United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Sherman Division

June 1, 2023

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

KIMBERLY C. PRIEST JOHNSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pending before the Court are Defendant Collin County Detention Facility's (the “Detention Facility”) Motion to Dismiss (the “Detention Facility's Motion”) (Dkt. #22) and Defendants Sheriff Skinner Officer Atkins, and Officer Cole's (together, the “Sheriff's Office Defendants,” and together with the Detention Facility, “Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss and Brief (the “Sheriff's Office Defendants' Motion,” together with the Detention Facility's Motion, “the Motions”) (Dkt. #23). To date, Plaintiff Cecil Allen Rusty Cadenhead (“Plaintiff”) has not filed a response. For the reasons that follow, the Court recommends the Motions (Dkt ##22, 23) be GRANTED and Plaintiff's lawsuit be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

I. BACKGROUND

On July 14, 2022, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this lawsuit against Defendants. (Dkt. #1). Plaintiff is currently housed in the Dallas Transitional Center (Dkt. #19) but at all times relevant to his claims, he was confined at the Detention Facility. During his tenure at the Detention Facility, Plaintiff alleges that he was kept “confined to a cell for an extended amount of time, unjustly.” (Dkt. #1, p. 3). With respect to Officer Atkins, Plaintiff alleges the following:

While housed in Pod 4A of CCDF (Collin County Detention Facility) 10-13-21 I submitted a grievance on Officer Atkins, who told the other inmates I did that. I was called a snitch by the other inmates, as well as threatened by them. I was placed on keep away from all status. I believe Officer Atkins also told the other inmates what my charge was. I was unjustly locked down for approximately two week[s] getting only one hour out of my cell every 26 or 29 hours. Being humiliated as well as threatened every day, until I was moved to cluster five.

(Dkt. #1-1, p. 1, ¶ 1). Plaintiff also alleges that, on March 3, 2022, “Officer Cole gave me two back to back 23 hour lockdowns as well as a disciplinary S.H.U. (special housing unit) case (which I did not have to serve) unjustly, for asking the med nurse a question.” (Dkt. #1-1, p. 1, ¶ 2). Plaintiff further alleges that Sheriff Skinner “did not/does not have staff pay attention to lockdown time.” (Dkt. #1, p. 3). Specifically, Plaintiff alleges the following:

Six times I was confined to a cell for extended amount of time, violating my 8^thAmendment, unjustly denying [privileges] (such as: phone, shower, outside recreation). Various other violations, (see enclosed documentation and grievance with response), of my constitutional rights.

(Dkt. #1, p. 4).^[1]Plaintiff requests the following relief: “Restitution in the amount of 600,000 dollars.” (Dkt. #1, p. 4).

Plaintiff attached a grievance and a response to his grievance. (Dkt. #1-1, pp. 4-5). Plaintiff's grievance states:

My 8^th Amendment, to be treated fairly and humanely/privilege to not be confined to a cell for more than 23 straight hours. 6 times total. 3 times while housed in 3B-44-01, while on “rotation.” 3-2-22 at 10:00 pm until 3-3-22 at 11:15 pm in 4C by Officer Cole, for me asking the med nurse a question. 5-18-22 at 10:00 pm until 520-22 at 10:40 am in 4C. 6-19-22 at 10:00 pm until 6-21-22 at approximately 9:30 am, in 4C. Several times I brought this issue up to pod officers, all of whom completely [disregarded] me, [dismissing] me. None of these times was I offered nor allowed any time out of my cell....

(Dkt. #1-1, 5). The Complaint Reply Form includes the following response:

I have researched your complaint. You were in Pod 3B from 11.12.21 until 11.22.2021. No lockdowns for disciplinary infractions were listed for that time period. In Pod 4C, no lock downs were listed for [disciplinary] infractions for any of the time periods you are referencing. In November of 2021, if the Pod was placed on a Covid protocol you would have been allowed 1 hour out a day. I find your complaint unfounded.

(Dkt. #1-1, p. 4).

On September 28, 2022, the Detention Facility moved to dismiss Plaintiff's claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Dkt. #22), arguing that it is a non-jural entity and cannot be sued. The Sheriff's Office Defendants also moved to dismiss Plaintiff's claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). (Dkt. #23). The Sheriff's Office Defendants argue that Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed because: the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) bars Plaintiff's claims; Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim for relief; and the Sheriff's Office Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. (Dkt. #23, pp. 4-8). In addition, Sheriff Skinner argues that no plausible allegations exist as to his direct or personal involvement and he cannot be held vicariously liable for his subordinates' actions, and any claim against him in his official capacity fails because Plaintiff identifies no constitutionally deficient policy, practice, or custom of Collin County, Texas. (Dkt. #23, pp. 9-13).

On October 5, 2022, the Court ordered that Plaintiff file a response, if any, to the Motions. (Dkt. #26). To date, Plaintiff has not filed a response.^[2]

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) allows a defendant to move for dismissal of an action if the plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Because dismissals under Rule 12(b)(6) are disfavored, the Court must accept all well-pleaded facts in the plaintiff's complaint as true, “even if doubtful or suspect,” and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Pena Arita v. United States, 470 F.Supp.3d 663, 680 (S.D. Tex. 2020). However, the Court does not accept as true “conclusory allegations, unwarranted factual inferences, or legal conclusions.” Ferrer v. Chevron Corp., 484 F.3d 776, 780 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting Plotkin v. IP Axess Inc., 407 F.3d 690, 696 (5th Cir. 2005)).

A claim will survive an attack under Rule 12(b)(6) if, considering all well-pleaded facts, the complaint states a plausible claim for relief, rather than “the mere possibility of misconduct.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). The well-pleaded facts must allow the Court to “draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. at 678. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will . . . be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id. When considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the Court's review is limited to the complaint, any document attached to the complaint, any document attached to the motion to dismiss that is central to the claim and referenced by the complaint, and any facts subject to judicial notice. See Walker v. Beaumont Indep. Sch. Dist., 938 F.3d 724, 735 (5th Cir. 2019); Lone Star Fund V (U.S.), L.P. v. Barclays Bank PLC, 594 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 2010) (citing Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 224 F.3d 496, 498-99 (5th Cir. 2000)).

The Court is also mindful that it “must construe the pleadings of pro se litigants liberally to prevent the loss of rights due to inartful expression.” Perez v. Dall. Cnty. Jail, No. 3:20-cv-01761, 2022 WL 1215781, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2022) (internal citations omitted); see also Andrade v. Gonzales, 459 F.3d 538, 543 (5th Cir. 2006). “But ‘liberal construction does not require that the Court . . . create causes of action where there are none.'” Rolan v. LaSalle Sw. Corr., No. 3:20-cv-2842, 2021 WL 5568168, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 1, 2021) (quoting Smith v. CVS Caremark Corp., No. 3:12-cv-2465, 2013 WL 2291886, at *8 (N.D. Tex. May 23, 2013)).

III. ANALYSIS

A. The Detention Facility's Motion

Liberally construing Plaintiff's Complaint, Plaintiff asserts the Detention Facility violated his constitutional rights by “keeping [him] confined to a cell for an extended amount of time, unjustly.” (Dkt. #1, pp. 3, 4). The Detention Facility argues that it is a non-jural entity and cannot be sued. (Dkt. #22). The Court agrees.

“A plaintiff may not bring a claim against a governmental agency or department unless it enjoys a separate and distinct legal existence.” McGrew v. City of Wichita Falls, No. 3:14-cv-679, 2015 WL 3528236, at *6 (N.D. Tex. June 4, 2015) (citing Darby v. Pasadena Police Dep't, 939 F.2d 311, 313-14 (5th Cir. 1991)). “State agencies that may sue and be sued are known as jural entities; non-jural entities are not subject to suit.” Id. (citing Darby, 939 F.2d at 313-14). The capacity of a county or city department to be sued is determined by the state where the district court is located. See Darby, 939 F.2d at 313; see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 17(b)(3).

Because this Court sits in Texas, it must apply Texas law to determine whether the Detention Facility can be sued. See Darby, 939 F.2d at 313. This Court has repeatedly found that the Detention Facility is a non-jural entity. See, e.g., Price v. Collin Cnty. Det Facility, No. 4:21-CV-729-SDJ-KPJ, 2022 WL 4480320, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 1, 2022), report and recommendation adopted, No. 4:21-CV-729-SDJ-KPJ, 2022 WL 4474903 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 26, 2022); Crawford v. Collin Cnty. Det. Facility, No. 4:20-CV-668-RAS-CAN, 2022 WL 4459855, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 18, 2022), report and recommendation adopted, No. 4:20-CV-668, 2022 WL 4449315 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 22, 2022); Marr v. Collin Cnty. Det. Ctr., No. 4:20-CV-273-RAS-KPJ, 2021 WL 4166945, at *3 (E.D. Tex. July 19, 2021) (collecting cases) (“As this Court has repeatedly held, the [Collin County]...