Serrano v. Garza

1

PAUL ALEXANDER SERRANO, Plaintiff, v. EDDIE GARZA, et al, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 7:22-CV-347

United States District Court, S.D. Texas, McAllen Division

February 2, 2024

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

J Scott Hacker, United States District Judge

Plaintiff PAUL ALEXANDER SERRANO, appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this civil action against several local entities and officials for allegedly violating his constitutional rights while he was a pre-trial detainee at the Hidalgo County Adult Detention Center (the “Detention Center”). According to Plaintiff, two corrections officers at the Detention Center, a David Flores First Lieutenant (“Lt. Flores”), and a Lieutenant Salinas (“Lt. Salinas”), destroyed several of Plaintiffs religious items, verbally disparaged him, and threatened to put him in solitary confinement because he had previously made written grievances about other corrections officers. (Dkt. No. 42 at 5; Dkt. No. 50 at 1-2). Plaintiff names as defendants the following: the City of Edinburg Police Department (the “EPD”); J.E “Eddie” Guerra, Sheriff of Hidalgo County (“Sheriff Guerra”), presumably in his role as the administrator, operator, and supervisor of the Detention Center;^[1] an official identified as “Eddie Garza, Director of the Texas DOC” (“Garza”); Ivonne Vasquez, Captain (“Captain Vasquez”), presumably in her role as a corrections officer supervisor at the Detention Center; Lt. Flores; and Lt. Salinas. (Dkt. No. 42 at 2-3, 5; Dkt. No. 50 at 1). His pro se pleadings liberally construed, see Coleman v. United States, 912 F.3d 824, 828 (5th Cir. 2019), Plaintiff seeks redress under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the form of money damages for the violation of his right to the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment, his right against retaliation for the exercise of protected First Amendment activity, and his right against cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. (Dkt. No. 42 at 5).

Considering that Plaintiff is a prisoner who seeks redress from a governmental entity, or officer or employee of a governmental entity, the amended complaint is subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (the “PLRA”), which contemplate dismissal of a complaint, or any portion thereof, that fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), 1915A(b)(1).

This case was referred to the Magistrate Judge for report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). After review of the record and the relevant law, the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the entirety of Plaintiff's claims against the EPD, Sheriff Guerra, Garza, and Captain Vasquez be DISMISSED for the failure to state a claim, and that Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims against Lt Flores and Lt. Salinas also be DISMISSED for the failure to state a claim. The Magistrate Judge does not make any recommendation as to the dismissal of Plaintiff's First Amendment free exercise and retaliation claims against Lt. Flores and Lt. Salinas. Issued contemporaneously with this report and recommendation is an advisory concerning the requirement that Plaintiff effect service of process on Lt. Flores and Lt. Salinas.

I. BACKGROUND

When he first filed his complaint in September 2022, Plaintiff was being held at the Detention Center in pre-trial custody on charges related to deadly conduct for the discharge of a firearm.^[2] (Dkt. No. 1).

Plaintiff applied for and was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. Nos. 5,10, 12, 28).

Because Plaintiff went on to file several handwritten letters that seemingly referred to different defendants and claims, the Magistrate Judge ordered that he submit an amended complaint on a standardized prisoner complaint form. (Dkt. Nos. 7, 13, 39).

Plaintiff submitted an amended complaint as ordered. (Dkt. No. 42).

Upon review of the amended complaint, the Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to provide a more definite statement in the form of written responses to questions as to the facts underlying his claims.^[3] (Dkt. No. 46).

Plaintiff submitted responses to the questionnaire as ordered. (Dkt. No. 50).

II. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff alleges through the amended complaint as follows:

[On September 9, 2022,] I was pulled out of my unit, which was Foxtrot 4A, by Lt. Flores and Lt. Salinas, when they took me into a room and started to interrogate, saying, “Are you stupid to think that you can file a grievance against my officers and threaten us with legal actions? You will not get anything.” From that day forward, they kept destroying my religious items and altar.

(Dkt. No. 42 at 5 (edited for readability)).

Through the order for a more definite statement, Plaintiff was posed questions meant to elicit information relating to matters such as the following: (i) the personal involvement of the officials and officers; (ii) whether Plaintiff intended to sue Lt. Flores and Lt. Salinas (insofar as Plaintiff alleged their personal involvement but had not named them as defendants); (iii) the nature of the religious items at issue and the circumstances behind their alleged destruction; and (iv) how Plaintiff believed the alleged acts of the officers violated his civil rights. (Dkt. No. 46).

Through his more definite statement, Plaintiff explains that “[his] religious affiliation is Santeria[,] which is considered Yoruba in Africa[,]” and that this affiliation was on record with officials at the Detention Center. (Dkt. No. 50 at 1). Among the items allegedly destroyed were pictures of Yoruba religious figures and a pendant on a gold chain-all handmade in Africa. (Id.). The pendant was handed down to Plaintiff by his grandfather. (Id.). Also destroyed were prayers handwritten by Plaintiff's grandfather before his passing. (Id. at 2). Plaintiff maintains that, due' to mental illness, he is unable to recall the text of the prayers. (Id.). In terms of the disposition of the items, Plaintiff alleges that the pictures were “ripped up[,] some thrown away[,]” and that the pendant was “taken” along with the gold chain. (Id. at 1). Lt. Flores and Lt. Salinas are alleged to have told Plaintiff that the items should not have been on his bunk. (Id.). No items taken were returned to Plaintiff. (Id.).

Plaintiff asserts that he wrote letters to Sheriff Guerra, Garza, and Captain Vasquez for help after he was wronged by Lt. Flores and Lt. Salinas. (Id.). According to Plaintiff, they all turned a “blind eye” to his situation given that Lt. Flores and Lt. Salinas were associates of Sheriff Guerra and Garza and outranked Captain Vasquez. (Id.). Plaintiff otherwise confirms that he is suing Lt. Flores and Lt. Salinas for their actions. (Id.).

Plaintiff claims that his First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion was violated insofar as destruction of his religious items hampered his ability to practice and express his religious beliefs. (Id. at 2).

Plaintiff also generally claims that Lt. Flores and Lt. Salinas took the acts they did in retaliation for Plaintiff's exercise of his First Amendment right to express grievances against the Detention Center and its officers. (Id. at 1-2).

In terms of the Eighth Amendment, Plaintiff claims that his right against cruel and unusual punishment was violated when he was taken by Lt. Flores and Lt. Salinas from his unit to a “multipurpose room,” where he was interrogated about his grievances and “verbally abused.” (Id.). Plaintiff alleges, for purposes of this claim, that Lt. Flores called him a “piece of shit” and said that Plaintiff would “never amount to anything thinking [he] [could] sue the [Detention Center]...” (Id. at 1). Plaintiff also adds the detail that Lt. Flores and Lt. Salinas threatened to put him in solitary confinement. (Id. at 2).

III. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Screening Under §§ 1915 and 1915A .

Section 1915(e)(2)(B) of the PLRA imposes a screening responsibility on the district court whenever a plaintiff is granted in forma pauperis status. Omran v. Wyche, 745 Fed.Appx. 225, 226 (5th Cir. 2018) (per curiam); Womack v. Teleplan, 2003 WL 21289652, at *1 (N.D. Tex. May 29, 2003) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)). Such screening applies to prisoners and non-prisoners alike. Womack, 2003 WL 21289652, at *1 n.1 (citing Newsome v. EEOC, 301 F.3d 227, 231-33 (5th Cir. 2002) (per curiam)). Section 1915A(a) of the PLRA mandates similar screening of any civil complaint by a prisoner against a governmental entity or its officers and employees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Pursuant to such screening under the PLRA, courts must identify and dismiss any claims that are: (i) frivolous or malicious; (ii) fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seek monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(b).

A dismissal under the PLRA for the failure to state a claim is governed by the same standard under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See DeMarco v. Davis, 914 F.3d 383, 386 (5th Cir. 2019). When considering whether the plaintiff has adequately stated a claim on which relief can be granted, the court examines whether the complaint contains sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Rogers v. Boatright, 709 F.3d 403, 407 (5th Cir. 2013) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)) (quotations omitted). The court construes the complaint liberally in favor of the plaintiff, takes all facts pleaded in the complaint as true, and considers whether, with every doubt resolved on the plaintiffs behalf, the complaint states any valid claim for relief. Harrington v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 563 F.3d 141, 147 (5th Cir. 2009) (quotations omitted).

...