DeRouen v. Aransas Cnty. Det. Ctr.

1

LAYNE ALAN DEROUEN, Plaintiff, v. ARANSAS COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 2:22-CV-00292

United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Corpus Christi Division

May 3, 2023

MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

MITCHEL NEUROCK UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Layne Alan DeRouen, a prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this prisoner civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff's case is subject to screening pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c);^[1] 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A. For purposes of screening and pursuant to 28 U.S.C §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1), the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff's § 1983 claim against Officer Cox in his individual capacity be RETAINED, and that Plaintiff's § 1983 claims relating to all other defendants be DISMISSED with prejudice as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

A. Jurisdiction.

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.

B. Proceedings.

At the time of the alleged incidents, Plaintiff was a pre-trial detainee housed in the Aransas County Detention Center in Rockport, Texas. See Sophia Englehart, Aransas County Man Sentenced to Life in Prison for Attempting to Light a Man on Fire, KRIS 6 News, Jan. 20, 2023 at 6:57 p.m., https://www.kristv.com/news/local-news/aransas-county-man-sentenced-to-life-in-prison-for-attempting-to-light-a-man-on-fire (reflecting that Plaintiff was charged in June 2022 and sentenced in January 2023). This facility lies within the Corpus Christi Division of the Southern District of Texas. See 28 U.S.C. § 124(b)(6). Plaintiff currently resides in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Correctional Institutions Division's James “Jay” H. Byrd Unit, located in Huntsville, Texas. (Doc. No. 18.)

Plaintiff filed this action on December 9, 2022. (Doc. No. 1.) After granting Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis, see Doc. No. 6, the Court directed Plaintiff to provide a more definite statement explaining his claims. (Doc. No. 7.) Liberally construed, Plaintiff alleges five main claims: (1) sexual assault; (2) failure to respond to grievances and legal mail; (3) failure to intervene; (4) retaliation; and (5) failure to investigate. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). After responding to the Court's order for more definite statement, Plaintiff filed a letter complaining of alleged breaches of confidentiality by his counsel, apparently in his state criminal case. (Doc. No. 17.) As Plaintiff's claims in that filing arise from incidents allegedly occurring in December 2022 and January 2023, and are unrelated to the main claims asserted in the complaint and more definite statement, the undersigned declines to add them to this lawsuit- they must be brought in a separate action. No process has been issued in this case. The undersigned is satisfied that Plaintiff has pleaded his best case. The case is now ripe for screening.

1. Allegation 1: August 13 sexual assault.

Plaintiff alleges that on August 13, 2022, while Plaintiff was in his bunk bed, Officer Cox grabbed his arm to wake him up, which Plaintiff deems to be physical abuse. (Doc. No. 13, p. 1.) Plaintiff does not contend that he suffered any injury. Plaintiff also claims that on that same night, Officer Cox poked him in the anus until he woke up and grabbed his anus and buttocks while he slept. Id. at 1-2. Plaintiff claims that Officer Smith witnessed this incident but did not intervene. Id. at 2. Plaintiff claims to have “mental anguish” from this incident. Id. at 1.

2. Allegation 2: August 22 sexual assault.

Plaintiff next alleges that on August 22, 2022 at around 6:00 p.m., Officer Cox poked him in the anus with a clipboard. (Doc. No. 14, pp. 1-2.) “[T]his Action proved to me that Officer Cox was personally sexually assaulting me knowingly and taunting me on purpose.” Id. (cleaned up). Allegedly, Officer Mendoza, Mark Dishman,^[2] Landon Rank,^[3] and unspecified “others” witnessed the incident, and cameras in the prison captured the incident on film. Id. at 2. Plaintiff alleges that after Mark Dishman saw the incident, he told Plaintiff to call the “PREA.”^[4]Id.

On August 23, 2022 at approximately 8:00 p.m., Plaintiff watched Officer Cox poke Mark Dishman in the anus until Dishman yelled “stop!” (Doc. No. 14, p. 2.) Plaintiff believes witnessing another prisoner being poked in the anus proves that Officer Cox was intentionally sexually assaulting him. Id. Plaintiff claims that he has difficulty sleeping, because he has nightmares of this assault, of Officer Cox passing Plaintiff his food, and of Officer Cox waking him up. Id. In connection to this incident, Plaintiff says he wrote to Chief Chapa, Sergeant Cooper, internal affairs, an ombudsman, and “AAA of Alamo.” Id.

3. Allegation 3: Failure to respond to letters and grievances.

Plaintiff alleges that in relation to the August 13, 2022 sexual assault incident, Plaintiff wrote an unspecified request and three grievances to Sheriff Mills. (Doc. No. 13, p. 2.) Plaintiff said that Sheriff Mills and staff never answered any of his grievances or request forms. Id. He asserts that because his “mail” was not read within 90 days, the defendants committed gross negligence. Id. Allegedly, on August 13, 2022, Officer Ridick signed off on and delivered two of the grievances to Chief Chapa's box. Id. at 3. According to Plaintiff, one of the grievances was about the alleged sexual assault incident on August 13, 2022 and the other was about Officer Ridick^[5] not letting Plaintiff speak to a sergeant. Id. Allegedly, Officer Ridick said that no sergeant would talk to Plaintiff and that he should just describe the incident in a grievance. Id. Plaintiff allegedly told Officer Ridick everything about the assaults. Id.

Plaintiff claims that Chief Chapa was grossly negligent by refusing to answer any of the grievances Plaintiff sent to him every 15 days. (Doc. No. 13, p. 3; Doc. No. 14, p. 4.) Specifically, Plaintiff explains that Chief Chapa is the grievance officer at the Aransas County Detention Center, whose policy allegedly is to answer all complaints within 15 days. (Doc. No. 13, p. 3.) According to Plaintiff, several officers delivered or signed off on the grievances. Id. Plaintiff asserts that he submitted seven grievances to Chief Chapa, stating:

1st one delivered by Ridick for refusing me a Sgt on 8-13-22 about an assault. I reported the crime on phone message #8 dial. 2nd grievance delivered by Ridick she swears she put them in Chief Chappas box! 3rd grievance given to Rosemond. 4th and 5th delivered by Mendoza. 6th & 7th delivered to Chappa and Bill Mills via Mendoza. Mendoza signed them and promised they will be delivered, [and they were delivered.]

Id. (cleaned up).

Plaintiff makes a similar claim against Lieutenant Martinez, claiming that he failed to respond to any of his requests about the sexual assault incident, and left Plaintiff with physical, emotional, and mental harm. (Doc. No. 14, p. 5.)

Further, Plaintiff alleges that the defendants' failure to respond to any of his complaints about the August 22 incident “tortured him for over 90 days.” (Doc. No. 14, p. 3 (cleaned up).) Plaintiff asserts that Sheriff Mills and his employees caused harm to him by not answering him or his letters and grievances, even after verbally telling Sergeant Cooper,^[6] Corporal Ureas, Officer Ridick, and “the PREA” of the incidents. Id. According to Plaintiff, Sheriff Mills was also grossly negligent by “ensuring” that none of Plaintiff's letters and eight grievances were responded to. Id.

Plaintiff next reiterates the number of grievances he sent (although this time claiming to have submitted 12 rather than seven), stating that he notified the Aransas County Detention Center about the August 22 sexual assault over 12 grievances, gave a “verbal notification” to Sergeant Cooper and Corporal Ureas, delivered five grievances to Chief Chapa and Sheriff Mills, and, after segregation, that he sent more grievances to Officer Art,^[7] David K.,^[8] and Lieutenant Martinez.^[9] (Doc. No. 14, p. 7.) Plaintiff claims that he never received a response to any of these alleged correspondences. Id. The undersigned liberally construes Plaintiff's allegation as a claim for failure to respond against the Aransas County Detention Center, Sheriff Mills, Chief Chapa, Lieutenant Martinez, and Corporal Ureas. The undersigned liberally construes Plaintiff's claims against Sheriff Mills, Chief Chapa, Lieutenant Martinez, and Corporal Ureas as being in both their official and individual capacities. Cf. Duncan v. Farren, No. 2:11-CV-194-J, 2012 WL 811518, at *3 n.2 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 12, 2012) (noting where it is unclear whether the plaintiff sues defendants in their official or individual capacities, a court may address both capacities).

4. Allegation 4: Failure to intervene.

Plaintiff claims that Officer Smith witnessed the August 13 incident but did not intervene. (Doc. No. 13, p. 2.) Plaintiff also claims that Officer Mendoza, Landon Rank, and unspecified “others” watched the August 22 incident and did not do anything about it, despite the fact that the cameras in the prison apparently captured the incident. (Doc. No. 14, p. 2.) Plaintiff has not included Officer Smith or Officer Mendoza as defendants.

5. Allegation 5: Retaliation for reporting sexual assault.

Plaintiff claims that he was put in administrative segregation for ten days, in retaliation for claiming that correctional officers were...