Michael Garrett v. William Stephens
675 F. App'x 444
5th Cir.2017Background
- Plaintiff Michael Garrett, a Texas prisoner, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging disciplinary charges, property confiscation, retaliation, and constitutional violations by prison employees including Candace Moore and former TDCJ director William Stephens.
- District court dismissed Garrett’s complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B).
- Garrett alleged retaliation for filing grievances and attempting to add Moore as a defendant in another suit; he also alleged due-process violations at a disciplinary hearing and RLUIPA/free-exercise injury from seizure of religious items.
- Garrett asserted deprivation of property without procedural due process and sought to sue defendants in official and individual capacities; he also named Texas AG Ken Paxton based on a TDCJ memorandum.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo and affirmed, concluding many claims lacked legal basis or factual support and noting Texas post-deprivation remedies were adequate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eighth Amendment claim for property confiscation | Confiscation was cruel and unusual | Dismissal as not an Eighth Amendment violation | Abandoned by plaintiff on appeal; not considered |
| Retaliation (disciplinary charges/property seizure) | Moore acted in retaliation for grievances and Garrett’s attempt to add her in another suit | Heck bar and lack of adequate pleading/evidence | Garrett failed to address Heck; claim treated as abandoned/futile |
| Due process at disciplinary hearing | Officer denied right to call witnesses and present evidence | Record shows Wolff requirements satisfied | Dismissal upheld as claim not facially plausible under Iqbal |
| RLUIPA / Free exercise (seizure of religious items) | Seizure forced modification of religious practices | Seizure was part of criminal/disciplinary investigation, not under a neutral policy | Dismissal affirmed for failure to allege a government policy/regulation under RLUIPA |
| Procedural due process for property deprivation (Parratt/Hudson) | State actor deprived Garrett of property without process | Parratt/Hudson: random/unauthorized acts require adequate post-deprivation state remedy; Texas conversion tort suffices | Dismissal affirmed; state tort remedies adequate so § 1983 claim fails |
| Access-to-courts claim | Seizure impaired Garrett’s ability to pursue legal claims | Garrett has filed multiple suits/appeals; no evidence of denial | Dismissal affirmed for lack of evidence of actual injury |
| Official-capacity damages / supervisory liability | Should be able to sue defendants in individual capacities; Stephens deliberately ignored grievances | District court only barred official-capacity damages under Eleventh Amendment; grievance denial not a constitutional harm; no evidence Stephens caused retaliation | No error: official-capacity monetary suit barred; no § 1983 supervisory liability shown |
| Claim against AG Paxton based on memorandum | Memorandum authorized disciplinary action and caused retaliation | Memorandum was explanatory; no causal link to Moore’s acts | Dismissal for failure to state a claim and/or as frivolous |
Key Cases Cited
- Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371 (5th Cir.) (standard for review of prisoner § 1983 dismissals)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (limitations on § 1983 claims that would imply invalidity of outstanding criminal judgment)
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) (due-process protections for prison disciplinary proceedings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard requiring plausible claims)
- Adkins v. Kaspar, 393 F.3d 559 (5th Cir.) (RLUIPA requires challenge to policy or regulation)
- Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981) (state must provide post-deprivation remedy for random unauthorized deprivations)
- Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984) (limitations on § 1983 for unauthorized intentional deprivations when adequate state remedy exists)
- Murphy v. Collins, 26 F.3d 541 (5th Cir.) (Texas conversion tort provides adequate post-deprivation remedy)
(Disposition: judgment affirmed; dismissal counts as a § 1915(g) strike.)