United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Brownsville Division
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
Ignacio Torteya, III United States Magistrate Judge.
Hector Javier Requena-Villarreal filed this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that he
was denied adequate medical care while he was incarcerated.
Requena-Villarreal first filed his “Prisoner Civil
Rights Complaint” (hereinafter, the “Initial
Complaint”) in July of 2017. Dkt. No. 1. Since then,
the Court has provided Requena-Villareal multiple
opportunities to clearly present his claims and provide
factual support for them. See Dkt. Nos. 10, 39, 44,
48. Thus, in addition to his Initial Complaint, the Court
considers the myriad letters that Requena-Villareal has
submitted in an attempt to more accurately state his claims.
Dkt. Nos. 1, 9, 13, 24, 37, 42, 47, 51. For the reasons
provided below, it is recommended that all of
Requena-Villarreal's claims be DISMISSED
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and the Clerk
of Court be ordered to close this case.
Initial Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) and subsequent filings,
Requena-Villarreal refers to injuries sustained during his
arrest and while incarcerated at two different detention
facilities. After review, the Court understands
Requena-Villarreal to allege the following
11, 2015, Requena-Villarreal knee was injured while he was
being arrested. Dkt. No. 13 at 1-2; Dkt. No. 51 at 1.
Requena-Villarreal requested an ambulance, but the officers
repeatedly told him that he would need to wait to receive
medical attention. Dkt. No. 51 at 1. Requena-Villarreal
believed he needed an ambulance to take him to a hospital
because the injury “was very painful and bleeding
profusely.” Id. He adds that his “left
knee became swollen because [he] did not receive medical
attention.” Id. He further claims that the
injury became infected based on his own observation that the
wound “was oozing blood and puss.” Id.
on June 15, 2015, while in custody at Detention Center Number
One (“D.C. 1”) in Brownsville, Texas,
Requena-Villarreal “slipped in the showers due to the
injury to [his] left knee.” Dkt. No. 51 at 3. As a
result of the fall, Requena-Villarreal felt “intense
pain to [his] left side, hip, groin, and spinal
column.” Dkt. No. 51 at 3. Requena-Villarreal
“notified the officers” at D.C. 1 “as soon
as the accident occurred, but they told [him] [he] had to
make a written request in order for the doctor to
attend” to him. Id. Three days after the fall,
Requena-Villarreal was taken to a physician who provided him
with 500 mg Tylenol pills and a pain-relieving cream.
Id.; Dkt. No. 1 at 5. Believing that the Tylenol and
pain-relieving cream were inadequate, Requena-Villarreal
continued submitting requests for medical treatment.
complains that the prison medical staff “took their
time in giving [him] . . . treatment” following his
shower fall. Dkt. No. 51 at 5. He asserts that he was
“damaged mentally and psychologically” because
prison officials did not give him “treatment until they
were told to and [Requena-Villarreal] was still suffering
from swelling and intense pain.” Dkt. No. 51 at 5.
was then transferred to Reeves III Correctional Institution
(hereinafter, “Reeves III”). In December 2015,
while at Reeves III, he developed a pain in his left ear.
Dkt. No. 1 at 8; Dkt. No. 51 at 10. He was sent to see Donald
Hubbardthe morning after notifying the guards of
his pain. Id. Hubbard told Requena-Villarreal that
the cause of the pain “was a garbage/object inside
[his] ear.” Dkt. No. 13 at 7 (errors in original).
Hubbard provided Requena-Villarreal with ear drops, and
instructed Requena-Villarreal to come back in a few days
“so that a nurse could wash out [his] ear.” Dkt.
No. 1 at 8; Dkt. No. 51 at 10.
his follow up visit with Hubbard, Requena-Villareal was told
that medical staff “would pull out the debris [he] had
in [his] left ear.” Dkt. No. 51 at 10. Hubbard then
used a medical instrument to remove something from
Requena-Villarreal's ear. Id. Requena-Villarreal
states that he “felt intense pain and heard a loud
buzzing to the point that [his] eyes sight blacked out”
when the debris was removed. Id. (errors in
original). When he told Hubbard that he “couldn't
stand the pain and the loud buzzing” and asked for
medication, Hubbard responded “that for the moment he
was not going to give [Requena-Villarreal] anything”
and that “he would call [Requena-Villarreal] later . .
. to set up another appointment.” Id. at 11.
made multiple requests to see a doctor following this
incident. He was provided “pain medication, a Tylenol
Pill #3, drops for the infection and an
anti-inflammatory.” Dkt. No. 51 at 12.
Requena-Villarreal also made requests to see an ear, nose,
and throat (“ENT”) specialist because “the
problem with [his] ear worsened every passing day.”
Dkt. No. 51 at 14. In response to his requests,
Requena-Villarreal was told he had to wait until the requests
for off-site treatment had been authorized. Dkt. No. 1 at 28,
December 20, 2016, Requena-Villarreal was taken to see an ENT
specialist. Dkt. No. 51 at 15; see also Dkt. No. 1
at 36. During that appointment, an audiologist determined
that Requena-Villarreal had “hearing loss on [his] left
ear.” Dkt. No. 1 at 36. As a result, “[a]n
outside consult for a hearing aid [was] submitted pending
approval.” Id. That request was approved on
February 8, 2017. Dkt. No. 1 at 40. Requena-Villarreal was
told that he would be “on call out to receive”
the hearing aid once it was purchased. Id. It is
unclear from the record whether Requena-Villarreal received
the hearing aid before his release from federal custody.
17, 2017, while still incarcerated, Requena-Villarreal filed
his Initial Complaint against the United
States. Dkt. No. 1. Then, pursuant to a Court
Order (Dkt. No. 6), Requena-Villarreal filed an Application
to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Dkt. No. 9). The Court granted
Requena-Villarreal's Application, and in the same Order,
instructed him “to re-plead his claims to state
definite causes of action against specific individuals or
entities.” Dkt. No. 10 at 1. Requena-Villarreal filed a
response (hereinafter, Requena-Villarreal's “First
Clarification”). Dkt. No. 13. In his First
Clarification, Requena-Villarreal listed additional parties
against whom he intended to bring suit. Id. The
Court ordered then issued summons to each of the named
defendants. See Dkt. No. 14 at 1.
Flores, one of the defendants named in the First
Clarification, filed a Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. No. 19. Lt.
Flores' primary contentions are that Requena-Villarreal
“has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, ” and that he has “failed to exhaust
administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation
Reform Act.” Id. at 5.
was also named as a defendant in Requena-Villarreal's
First Clarification. Dkt. No. 13. However, Hubbard has not
been able to receive authorization from Requena-Villarreal to
access his medical information,  and consequently, has not
filed a responsive pleading. No. other defendants have filed
an answer or otherwise responded to this lawsuit.
his First Clarification, Requena-Villarreal has attempted to
clarify the scope of his lawsuit, the nature of his claims,
and the underlying factual basis for his claims many
times. After receiving each of these distinct,
sometimes convoluted narratives from Requena-Villarreal, the
Court issued an Order for More Definite Statement
(hereinafter, the Court's “Questionnaire”).
Dkt. No. 48. In order to “properly evaluate the merits
of this action and determine the scope of his lawsuit,
” the Court ordered Requena-Villarreal “to submit