Davis v. Dome
4:24-cv-00304
S.D. Tex.May 30, 2024Background
- Monroe L. Davis, a Texas inmate, brought a civil rights action under § 1983, alleging medical harm under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and medical negligence.
- Davis asserted defendants Dome and Muldowney, medical providers at the Boyd Unit in 2010, prescribed him Zantac (ranitidine), allegedly leading to cancer, gallbladder removal, and eventual kidney failure.
- Davis sought $2.5 million in damages and injunctive and declaratory relief against Dome, Muldowney, TDCJ, and UTMB (as the employers of the individual defendants).
- The court screened Davis’s in forma pauperis complaint under the PLRA, per 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A.
- The relevant alleged harms and medical treatment occurred between 2010 (prescription) and 2021 (start of dialysis), but Davis filed suit in January 2024.
- The court sua sponte considered issues of improper venue (Boyd Unit being in another federal district) and statute of limitations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper Venue | Claims arise from medical care provided by Dome and Muldowney in TDCJ custody | Events occurred in Boyd Unit (Western District, not Houston Division) | Venue improper in the Southern District |
| Statute of Limitations | Harm occurred from 2010–2021; complaint filed in 2024 | All claims accrued more than two years before filing | All claims time-barred |
| Failure to State a Claim | Prescribing Zantac amounted to deliberate indifference and negligence | No facts pled showing deliberate indifference under applicable standard | No claim stated; complaint dismissed |
| Basis for Tolling Limitations | Not explicitly raised; timing of injury discovery not adequately pled | No tolling facts alleged; had knowledge by March 2020 | No tolling basis; limitations expired |
Key Cases Cited
- Samford v. Dretke, 562 F.3d 674 (5th Cir. 2009) (standard for dismissal as frivolous under § 1915)
- Rogers v. Boatright, 709 F.3d 403 (5th Cir. 2013) (describes when a claim lacks an arguable basis in law or fact)
- Newsome v. EEOC, 301 F.3d 227 (5th Cir. 2002) (Rule 12(b)(6) standard applies to PLRA dismissals)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (pro se complaints held to more lenient standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (complaints must allege more than legal conclusions)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference standard under Eighth Amendment)
- Frame v. City of Arlington, 657 F.3d 215 (5th Cir. 2011) (complaints may be dismissed as time-barred on their face)
- Gartell v. Gaylor, 981 F.2d 254 (5th Cir. 1993) (untimely § 1983 claims are frivolous)