David Land v. Tommy Gage
693 F. App'x 358
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff David Wayne Land, a Texas prisoner, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deliberate indifference and unconstitutional conditions of confinement after harassment and harm by another inmate.
- Land answered a form question saying he had not exhausted institutional grief steps; the complaint otherwise did not discuss exhaustion.
- The district court dismissed Land’s complaint for failure to exhaust and for failure to state a claim, and denied his motion to alter the judgment.
- Land appealed the dismissal and moved for appointment of counsel.
- The Fifth Circuit considered (1) whether reliance on the form answer improperly shifted the burden to Land to plead exhaustion and (2) whether the district court erred by dismissing his pro se complaint without conducting a Spears hearing or using a questionnaire to develop allegations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exhaustion must be pleaded by prisoner or is affirmative defense | Land argued exhaustion was excused and should not be required to be pleaded | Defendants relied on Land’s form answer saying "No" to exhaustion to justify dismissal | Court held exhaustion is an affirmative defense per Jones; district court erred to rely on form answer to impose pleading obligation on Land (contrary to Jones and Carbe) |
| Whether dismissal for failure to state a claim was proper without developing pro se allegations | Land argued his undeveloped allegations could state a plausible claim if developed | District court dismissed under §1915A(b)(1)/(2) without Spears hearing or questionnaire | Court held district court erred: pro se plaintiff must be given opportunity to develop claims (Spears/Eason); remand required to develop facts |
| Whether Land’s allegations plausibly state deliberate indifference | Land alleged officials knew of harassment, kept him adjacent as “bait,” refused transfer, causing psychological and physical harm | Defendants maintained dismissal was appropriate for failure to state a claim | Court held that, if developed, Land’s allegations could plausibly state deliberate indifference and were not frivolous or delusional (Iqbal standard) |
| Whether counsel should be appointed | Land sought appointment of counsel | N/A | Court denied appointment of counsel (Ulmer) |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (exhaustion under PLRA is an affirmative defense; prisoners need not plead exhaustion)
- Carbe v. Lappin, 492 F.3d 325 (5th Cir. 2007) (districts cannot require prisoners to plead exhaustion by local rule)
- Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985) (procedures for developing pro se prisoner allegations before dismissal)
- Eason v. Thaler, 14 F.3d 8 (5th Cir. 1994) (use of questionnaire or Spears hearing before dismissing pro se complaint)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for federal pleadings)
- Bazrowx v. Scott, 136 F.3d 1053 (5th Cir. 1998) (error to dismiss pro se complaint without opportunity to amend)
- Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209 (5th Cir. 1982) (standards for appointment of counsel in civil cases)