United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
MCBRYDE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
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. Having reviewed the amended complaint, the
court has determined that it should be dismissed in its
entirety pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 191SA.
summary form, plaintiff has pleaded that:
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. 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
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.
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.
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
Screening Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
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 .
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).
now considered the allegations in the complaint, the court
concludes that plaintiff's amended complaint should be