Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Leyba v. Bell

United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Tyler Division

July 17, 2017

ROLAND E. LEYBA, #1603446
v.
OLIVER J. BELL, ET AL.

          ORDER OF DISMISSAL

          Ron Clark, United States District Judge

         Plaintiff Roland E. Leyba, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed the above-styled and numbered civil rights lawsuit against TDCJ employees: Oliver J. Bell (chairman, TDCJ), John R. Rupert (senior warden), Robert Eason (Regional II Director), John R. Wisener (Assistant Warden), FNU White (Lieutenant), FNU Satterwhite (Special Unit Investigator), and FNU Bullard (OIG Officer Personal Hallway Investigator). The basis of the lawsuit was that the defendants failed to protect Mr. Leyba. The complaint was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love, who issued a Report and Recommendation concluding that the lawsuit should be dismissed with prejudice. Mr. Leyba has filed objections.

         Standard of Review and Reviewability

         Where a magistrate judge's report has been objected to, the district court reviews the recommendation de novo pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. See also 28 U.S.C § 636(b) (1) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is made.”). During a de novo review, a court examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment of the law. When no objections are filed, plaintiff is barred from de novo review by the district judge of those findings, conclusions, and recommendations and, except upon grounds of plain error, from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the district court. Douglass v. United Services Automobile Association, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir.1996) (en banc ).

         Discussion and Analysis of Mr. Leyba's Objections

         The Report concluded that the lawsuit should be dismissed with prejudice because Mr. Leyba failed to allege facts showing that either before or after the incident, the defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to his safety. The Report further found that the “failure to protect claim” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, is frivolous in that it lacks any basis in law and fact, and should be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). The Report concluded that the claim, as well as the entire lawsuit, should be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).

         Mr. Leyba repeats his argument from his complaint that prison officials knew of the “excessive risk to plaintiff and did nothing to abate or deter the matter”. See Objections at 1. Mr. Leyba also requests that he be allowed to amend his complaint “to better accomodate (sic) this Court's ability to arrive at a favorable verdict and vindicate plaintiff of his deprivated (sic) rights, privileges and immunities”. See Objections at 6.

         In contrast to Mr. Leyba's argument, the record reveals that Defendants undertook two independent investigations: (1) the Office of the Inspector General initiated its own investigation on October 30, 2012; and (2) TDCJ held an OPI initiated on November 7, 2012, which included a follow-up Security Threat Group (“STG”) investigation as well. See Docket Entry #16, Exhibit C - D. Prison officials were responsive to Mr. Leyba's complaints. Thus, Defendants were not deliberately indifferent to Mr. Leyba's safety, rather, the findings of both investigations showed that Mr. Leyba's claims are not supported by the evidence.

         On October 20, 2012, Mr. Leyba wrote a letter to Defendant Oliver J. Bell at the Texas Board of Criminal Justice, stating that Mr. Leyba had been involved in an “operation” attempting to identify members of a tobacco ring at the Coffield Unit, and that the officer he was purportedly assisting had given him a disciplinary case. See Docket Entry # 16, Exhibit C at 21-23. Mr. Leyba also claimed that he felt his life was in danger and that he was receiving major disciplinary cases for refusing housing due to the situation. See Docket Entry # 16, Exhibit C at 20.

         Defendant Bell's office received the correspondence on October 29, 2012, and immediately sent a correspondence to the Office of the Inspector General directing them to conduct a life-endangerment study. Id. On November 7, 2012, Mr. Leyba initiated an OPI with Lieutenant White, seeking the protection of TDCJ and transfer to protective custody or a mental health facility. See Docket Entry # 16, Exhibit C at 12. Mr. Leyba was interviewed by Lieutenant Black on the same day, and Mr. Leyba stated that he was being threatened by four inmates because they believed Mr. Leyba had “snitched” on them. Id. at 15. During this OPI, Mr. Leyba alleges that the threats began in April, and that on November 1, 2012, while he was in the dayroom on H-Wing, the four named inmates yelled threatening remarks at him from the recreation yard. Id. at 15. The OPI investigator concluded that Mr. Leyba's claim was unsubstantiated. Id. at 16.

         On November 9, 2012, Mr. Leyba was interviewed by Security Threat Group (“STG”) Officer C. Reyes, concerning the purported threats. Id. at 19. During this interview, Mr. Leyba altered his story slightly, this time claiming that the four inmates threatened him during the first week of October while he was in the recreation yard; he claims they yelled threats from the H-wing which faces the recreation yard. Id. at 19.

         Mr. Leyba again changed his story, this time claiming that the threats began in October of 2012 from the previous claim that the threats began in April. Id. Mr. Leyba claimed the four inmates that he named wrote the “kites” threatening him, and when asked why Mr. Leyba believed those four inmates wrote the “kites” he said they were the only ones who would write the threatening letters to him. Id. Officer Reyes then interviewed the four inmates that Mr. Leyba believed were threatening him, and all four inmates stated that they believed an offender from their own building, named Wickware, turned them in to TDCJ personnel. Id. None of the four inmates Mr. Leyba believed threatened him were classified security threats, nor were they gang-affiliated, nor were they housed on H-Wing within the six-months prior to November 9, 2012, STG investigation. Id. The STG investigation found no merit to Mr. Leyba's claims. Id.

         On November 11, 2012, Investigator Daniel Wolfe reviewed TDCJ's OPI and the STG report, and then interviewed Mr. Leyba. See Docket Entry # 16, Exhibit C at 7. Mr. Leyba claimed that he began working with Officer Brown in April of 2012, and that he had received a disciplinary on August 8, 2012, for possession of tobacco. Id. Mr. Leyba claimed that he was working with another inmate for Officer Brown, but could not name the other offender when asked. Id. Mr. Leyba claimed that Officer Brown allowed him to possess tobacco, in order to convince the other inmates that he was involved in the tobacco ring, and that during the course of the “operation” he had provided many names to TDCJ personnel, and as a result, those inmates received disciplinary cases and were sent to segregation because of him. Id. Mr. Leyba claimed that the inmates eventually figured out that he had been “snitching” and then began sending Mr. Leyba threatening typewritten messages in “kites”. Id.

         Investigator Wolfe then interviewed Officer Brown. Id. Officer Brown denied that he permitted Mr. Leyba to possess tobacco or that he used Mr. Leyba as a “snitch”; Officer Brown submitted a written statement attesting to the same. Id. at 9. Based the various interviews and investigations into threats of violence that Mr. Leyba purportedly received, it was clear to officials that Mr. Leyba's claims lacked credibility. In his OPI on November 7, 2012, Mr. Leyba claims that the threats began ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.