Benavides v. Lucio, 1:18-cv-00159

Background

Plaintiff Ernesto Benavides, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, sued five jail officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging denial of access to courts, retaliation, and improper commissary deductions.
Core factual complaints: (1) in 2013 his court-appointed attorney failed to file a timely appeal of a pretrial ruling (30-day window); (2) thereafter he alleges limited or denied access to legal materials and court access causing procedural bars to out‑of‑time relief; (3) he alleges retaliatory disciplinary measures (TV and commissary restrictions, removal of clothesline, wristband charge); and (4) a $10 commissary deduction for replacing an ID wristband.
Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and argued (a) Benavides failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the PLRA and (b) the complaint fails to state constitutional claims.
The magistrate judge ordered a more definite statement about the 2013 claim; Benavides supplemented but did not provide adequate dates or specifics about when he knew the 30‑day deadline had lapsed.
The court found defendants did not meet their burden to establish failure to exhaust on the record, but concluded Benavides’ substantive § 1983 claims failed as a matter of law and recommended dismissal without prejudice; motion to appoint counsel was moot.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Failure to exhaust (PLRA)	Benavides says harassment and commissary restrictions impeded his ability to exhaust and correspondence materials were unavailable.	Defendants assert Benavides did not exhaust and that filed grievances were answered, so he should have continued administrative appeals.	Defendants did not carry burden to prove failure to exhaust on this record; exhaustion defense not established.
Access to courts based on 2013 attorney failure / timeliness	Benavides contends his attorney failed to file a notice of appeal within 30 days in 2013 and that this amounted to denial of access to courts.	Defendants note Benavides had a court‑appointed attorney (access through counsel) and Benavides later filed multiple state filings.	Claim dismissed: pleading lacks dates and facts to determine accrual/statute of limitations and, substantively, access-rights claim fails because he had counsel and has filed post‑2013 court submissions.
Ongoing inability to pursue out‑of‑time appeals / actual injury	Benavides alleges limited access to legal materials hindered development of arguments and caused procedural bars to relief.	Defendants argue he was able to prepare and transmit documents (he filed motions and Article 11.07 petitions), so no actual injury.	Dismissed for failure to plead an actual, nonfrivolous litigation prejudice: filings show he could access courts and no prejudice pleaded.
Retaliation and due process for commissary restrictions / $10 charge	Benavides asserts sanctions and a $10 deduction were retaliatory and denied due process.	Defendants characterize the actions as disciplinary and deny a protected liberty interest was implicated.	Dismissed: retaliation inadequately pleaded (no chronology or motive shown); no protected liberty or property interest in temporary commissary restriction or $10 wristband charge, so no due process violation.

Key Cases Cited

Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977) (right of access to courts requires adequate opportunity to challenge conditions or convictions)
Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996) (access claim requires showing actual injury to pursuit of nonfrivolous legal claims)
Twombly v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must state a plausible claim to survive dismissal)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (legal conclusions insufficient; factual plausibility required)
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (exhaustion under PLRA is an affirmative defense; prison grievance procedures define proper exhaustion)
Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995) (liberty interest analysis: atypical and significant hardship required for due process protection)
Brewster v. Dretke, 587 F.3d 764 (5th Cir. 2009) (plaintiff must show actual injury from denial of access to courts)