Houston v. Taylor County Jail et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
ABILENE DIVISION
JOHNNY DWIGHT HOUSTON, JR.,
Plaintiff,
Vv. No. 1:23-CV-00145-H
TAYLOR COUNTY JAIL, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER ACCEPTING IN PART THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a
recommendation (FCR) in this case. Dkt. No. 25. No objections were filed. The
Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court dismiss all but two of Plaintiff's claims
without prejudice. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the following two
claims should proceed: (1) Plaintiff's First Amendment claim against Defendant Sheriff
Ricky Bishop based on the two-week limitation of mail access; and (2) Plaintiff's condition-
of-confinement claim against Defendant Bishop based on uninsulated phones.
The District Court made an independent examination of the record in this case and
reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s report for plain error. As explained below, the Court
accepts and adopts in part the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge. In short, the Court dismisses the following claims without prejudice: (1) Plaintiffs
claims against Correct Solutions and Tech Friends; (2) Plaintiff's First Amendment claims
against Sheriff Bishop based on the use of Jailatm.com and the resulting delays;
(3) Plaintiffs deliberate indifference and negligence claims against Sheriff Bishop and the
Case 1:23-cv-00145-H Document 26 Filed 04/06/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID <pageID>

unnamed Sergeant. However, the Court declines to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation that Plaintiff's First Amendment mail-access claim and his conditions-of-
confinement claim based on uninsulated phones should proceed. Instead, the Court
dismisses those claims with prejudice.
1. Plaintiff's First Amendment mail-access claim seeking injunctive relief is moot.
Plaintiff requested only injunctive relief for his First Amendment claim concerning
the two-week limitation on mail access. Dkt. No. 1 at 5. Specifically, he requested to be
given access to his physical mail. However, Plaintiff was released from the Taylor County
Detention Center (TCDC) after filing this case, and the docket reflects that his current
mailing address is a residential address. A prisoner’s claims for declaratory and injunctive
relief based on the conditions of his confinement become moot upon his release from prison.
Herman v. Holiday, 238 F.3d 660, 665 (Sth Cir. 2001); see also Busick v. Neal, 2010 WL
2102322, at *6 (Sth Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (holding that a prisoner’s First Amendment
claim for injunctive relief was moot because he had been transferred away from the facility
where the alleged constitutional violation occurred); Neal v. Lucas, 75 F. App’x 960, 961 (Sth
Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (same). Plaintiff's claim is moot in light of his release from jail.
And Plaintiff alleges no facts indicating that he may return to the TCDC or that any
repeated or ongoing violation will occur. Thus, Plaintiffs First Amendment claim for
injunctive relief must be dismissed with prejudice as moot.
2. Plaintiffs conditions-of-confinement claim seeking compensatory relief is
foreclosed by the PLRA’s “physical injury requirement.”
Next, Plaintiff requested $3 million in compensatory damages for his claims
concerning the uninsulated phones. Dkt. No. 1 at 5. Plaintiff alleged that he was
“shocked,” and the breaker was blown when he used the phone, but he failed to allege that
Case 1:23-cv-00145-H Document 26 Filed 04/06/26 Page 2 of 5 PageID <pageID>

he sustained any physical injury as a result. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act
(PLRA), a prisoner may not recover “for mental or emotional injury suffered while in
custody without a prior showing of physical injury or the commission of a sexual act.”
42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e); see, e.g., Herman v. Holiday, 238 F.3d 660, 665 (Sth Cir. 2001)
(explaining that the Fifth Circuit has “specifically held that if the plaintiff fails to show a
physical injury, Section 1997e(e) bars recovery for mental and emotional damages”).
Indeed, Plaintiff appears to complain primarily about the lack of preventive maintenance in
order “to avoid any physical injury or health problem that’s a danger to its prisoner[s] and
detainees.” Dkt. No. 1 at 5. Even assuming the electrical shock caused temporary pain,
Plaintiff has not alleged that he suffered any physical injury. To the extent Plaintiff claims
that he feared being shocked again, that is not enough.
The Fifth Circuit has concluded that psychological distress based on speculation that
medical care may be necessary in the future due to exposure to a hazardous substance is not
sufficient to satisfy the physical injury requirement found in the PLRA and will not support
a prisoner’s claim for compensatory damages. See Herman v. Holiday, 238 F.3d 660, 666 (Sth
Cir. 2001) (stating that “fear of contracting a future illness” as the result of exposure to
asbestos, without an accompanying physical injury, was insufficient to allow a claim of
compensatory damages under Section 1997e(e)); see also Hawkins v. Trents Flying Svc., 45 F.
App’x 325, 2002 WL 1899587, at *1 (Sth Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (dismissing a complaint for
monetary damages filed in connection with the aerial application of pesticides near the
plaintiff's prison unit). And other Courts have come to the same conclusion in similar
circumstances to Plaintiffs. See, e.g., Collins v. Herrera, 2019 WL 2176305 (S.D. Tex.
Houston Div., May 20, 2019) (failure to plead sufficient facts showing physical injury as a
Case 1:23-cv-00145-H Document 26 Filed 04/06/26 Page 3 of 5 PageID <pageID>

result of prison official’s failure to replace water pipes that allegedly contained asbestos
precluded prisoner’s claim for compensatory damages); Stevenson v. Dallas Cnty. Sheriff Dep’t.,
No. 3:14-CV-1358, 2014 WL 5483003 (N.D. Tex. Dallas Div., Sept. 30, 2014) (without
allegation of physical injury, plaintiff who found glass in his Jello but spit it out and did not
ingest the glass, could not support his claims for monetary damages).
Although Plaintiff submitted responses to the Court’s questionnaire, he has not
alleged that he suffered any injury following the shock from the phone wire, or that he
sought or received any medical care as a result. In short, none of Plaintiffs pleadings
contain facts establishing that he suffered any physical injury following the incidents.
Because Plaintiff has not alleged any facts showing that he has suffered a physical injury as
a result of the failure on the part of the defendant to repair or replace the phone equipment,
his claim for compensatory damages is precluded by Section 1997e(e).
Se Conclusion
As explained above, the Court accepts and adopts in part the findings, conclusions,
and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. As a result, the Court orders:
(1) Plaintiffs claims against Correct Solutions and Tech Friends, Inc., are dismissed
without prejudice;
(2) Plaintiff's First Amendment claims against Defendant Ricky Bishop based on the
use of Jailatm.com and the resulting delays are dismissed without prejudice;
(3) Plaintiff's property deprivation and negligence claims against Defendant Ricky
Bishop and the unnamed Sergeant are dismissed without prejudice; and
Case 1:23-cv-00145-H Document 26 Filed 04/06/26 Page 4 of 5 PageID <pageID>

(4) Plaintiff's First Amendment claim against Defendant Ricky Bishop based on the
two-week limitation on mail access, and his condition-of-confinement claim
based on the uninsulated inmate phones are dismissed with prejudice.
All relief not expressly granted, and any pending motions are denied.
Judgment will be entered accordingly.
So ordered.
Dated April ¢_, 2026. /
JAMES WESLEY HENDRIX
United i District Judge
Case 1:23-cv-00145-H Document 26 Filed 04/06/26 Page 5 of 5 PageID <pageID>