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.

McCabe v. Waybourn

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division

June 18, 2018

DAVID McCABE, Plaintiff,
v.
BILL WAYBOURN, ET AL., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          JOHN MCBRYDE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Came on for consideration the amended complaint filed in the above-captioned action by plaintiff, David McCabe. Defendants are Bill Waybourn ("Waybourn"), Cabaio, M. Gardener ("Gardener"), and Forensic MH Services.[1] Having reviewed the amended complaint, the court has determined that it should be dismissed in its entirety pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 191SA.

         I.

         Plaintiff's Claims

         In summary form, plaintiff has pleaded that:

         Plaintiff is presently a pretrial detainee in custody at the Tarrant County Jail. Just prior to his arrival to the Tarrant County Jail, he received inpatient psychiatric care at Texas Health Huguley's Behavioral Health Department. Upon being booked, plaintiff told Tarrant County Jail officials "that he had a verifiable need for prescription medications and follow-up care consequential to that in-patient [sic] stay." Doc.[2] 8 at 6. Plaintiff was assured his medical needs would be attended to. Several months passed before plaintiff was prescribed any medication. Plaintiff was prescribed for a short period of time, during March and April 2017, medication for depression, but not for any other condition. Thereafter, in April 2017, plaintiff met with Gardener, a counselor employed by Forensic MH Services and hired by Tarrant County to provide medical services to inmates, who represented to plaintiff that plaintiff's "prior medical records did not exist, that he had no other need for medication, his current treatment was to be stopped, and that she was in charge here." Id. "Plaintiff's care in all forms was stopped." Id. Plaintiff has filed a grievance stating that he was suffering from severe depression, anxiety, and manic episodes.

         On September 30, 2017, defendant Cabaio, a correctional officer at Tarrant County Jail, left the facility keys in a door in plaintiff's housing area. Several inmates were conspiring to escape with the keys. Plaintiff and another inmate reported the situation. Approximately thirty or forty-five minutes later, Cabaio and another officer responded to the emergency call. Plaintiff alleges that Cabaio made a verbal threat to the inmates. After this incident, plaintiff requested psychiatric care.

         Plaintiff again sought treatment from Gardener in October 2017. He told Gardener he was suffering from manic depression and anxiety, the symptoms of which were aggravated by the above events and harassment related to those events. Plaintiff requested counseling and medication. Gardener refused to treat plaintiff. Gardener did not believe plaintiff's representations, and stated that she would not prescribe plaintiff any medication because plaintiff had refused treatment. As a result, plaintiff has suffered from suicidal depression, manic episodes, and severe anxiety. Also, he has contemplated suicide. Id. at 11.

         Plaintiff asserts claims against defendants for deliberate indifference to his medical needs, retaliation, conspiracy, due process, abuse of process, and negligence under laws of Texas. These claims are brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985.

         II. Screening Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A

         As a prisoner seeking redress from government officials, plaintiff's complaint is subject to preliminary screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. See Martin v. Scott, 156 F.3d 578, 579-80 (5th Cir. 1998) . Section 1915A(b) (1) requires sua sponte dismissal if the court finds that the complaint is either frivolous or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. A claim is frivolous if it "lacks an arguable basis in either fact or law." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); see also Thomas v. United States, No. 4:17-CV-240-A, 2017 WL 1133423 at *2-3 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 24, 2017) . A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted when, assuming that all the allegations in the complaint are true even if doubtful in fact, such allegations fail to raise a right to relief above the speculative level. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); see also Thomas, 2017 W: 1133423 at *3 .

         In evaluating whether the complaint states a claim upon which relief may be granted, the court construes the allegations of the complaint favorably to the pleader. Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1975). However, the court does not accept conclusory allegations or unwarranted deductions of fact as true, and a plaintiff must provide more than labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; Tuchman v. DSC Commc'ns Corp., 14 F.3d 1061, 1067 (5th Cir. 1994).

         Having now considered the allegations in the complaint, the court concludes that plaintiff's amended complaint should be dismissed ...


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.