Lopez v. Garcia et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
MICHAEL LOPEZ TDCJ # 2162072,
Plaintiff,
v.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-2 045
CHRISTOPHER N. GARCIA, al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The plaintiff, Michael Lopez (TDCJ #216072), has ed a Civil
Rights Complaint (Docket Entry No. 1-3) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against several Texas Department of Criminal Justice "TDCJ")
employees. Now pending is the defendants' Motion to Dismiss
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 {b) (1) and (6)
("Defendants' Motion to Dismiss") {Docket Entry No. 3). Lopez has
not responded to the motion. After considering all of the pleadings
and the applicable law, the court will grant the motion to dismiss
led by the defendants for the reasons explained below.
I. Background
Lopez alleges that several discrete events violated his rights
under the Eighth Amendment. All events allegedly occurred at
TDCJ's Wynne Unit, where the defendants are employed.
Lopez first complains that temperatures inside the unit
dropped below freezing for three days March 2023 due to a broken
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
February 19, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-03045 Document 11 Filed 02/19/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 10

window and lack of heating. Complaint at 7. Lopez alleges that
two officers came through the cell block asking whether anyone
needed extra blanket or jacket, but that he never received either.
Id. at 7, 14. The defendants note that Lopez does not al that
he lacked all bedding or jackets, but only that he did not receive
any extra blankets or jackets.
Lopez further alleges that he was only allowed recreation
"about a dozen times" during his first year at the Wynne Unit. ]J;L_
at 8. He alleges that he complained and
the lack of recreation violated TDCJ pol
led grievances, and that
,ls;L_ at 8, 16-17.
Lopez alleges that he did not receive meals "at proper times"
for several months in 2023 and early 2024. He acknowledges that he
did receive his meals, but claims that they were served hours late.
Id. at 9-10. He also claims that he once received a meal tray with
a cockroach on it. at 12. He contends that, on another
occasion, staff forgot to bring his lunch tray. Id.
Lopez claims that the water in his cell was turned off for 12
hours over night on June 19 and 20, 2023. He was told that the
water was turned off because another inmate was flooding his cell,
and complains that his grievance was not properly addressed.
,ls;L_ at 9, 46-49.
On July 7, 2025, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss.
Lopez has not responded.
II. Standard of Review
The defendants move to dismiss the Amended Complaint under
-2-
Case 4:25-cv-03045 Document 11 Filed 02/19/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 10

Rule 12(b)(1) and (6) of the Federal of Civil Procedure.
A. Ru1e 12 (b) (1)
A federal court must dismiss a case for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) (1) when
the court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate
the plaintiff's claims. Home Builders Assoc' of Miss., Inc., v.
City of Madison, 143 F.3d 1006, 1010 (5th Cir.1998). In resolving
a motion under Rule 12(b) (1), a court may refer to evidence outside
the pleadings. Espinoza v, Mo. Pacific R, Co., 754 F.2d 1247, 1248
n. 1 (5th Cir.1985). When the jurisdictional issue is of a factual
nature rather than facial, plaintiff must establish subject matter
jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. Irwin v. Veterans
Admin., 874 F.2d 1092, 1096 (5th Cir.1989).
B. Rule 12(b) (6)
To withstand a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the
factual allegations in the complaint "must be enough to a
right to relief above the speculative level [.]" Bell Atlantic Corp.
v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007} (citation omitted). If the
complaint has not set forth "enough facts to state a claim to
rel that is plausible on its face," it must be dismissed. at
1974.
In reviewing a motion under Rule 12 (b)(6), a court must
"accept[] all well-pleaded facts as true and view[] those facts in
the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Bustos v. Martini
-3-
Case 4:25-cv-03045 Document 11 Filed 02/19/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 10

Club, Inc., 599 F.3d 458, 461 (5th Cir. 2010) (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted). However, a reviewing court need
not accept as true any "conclusory allegations, unwarranted factual
inferences, or legal conclusions." Ferrer v. Chevron Coro., 484
F.3d 776, 780 (5th Cir. 2007) (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted). In other words, "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of
a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
suffice." Ashcroft v. Igbal, 129 s. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing
Twombly, 127 s. Ct. at 1965).
Because he proceeds pro se, the plaintiff's pleadings are held
to a less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. See
Haines v. Kerner, 92 S. Ct. 594, 596 (1972) (per curiam); �
Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) ("A document filed
pro se is 'to be liberally construed [.]'") (quoting Estelle v.
Gamble, 97 S. Ct. 285, 292 (1976)). Nevertheless, a plaintiff's
factual allegations "must be enough to raise a right to relief
above the speculative level[.]" Twombly, 127 S. Ct. at 1965. If
the plaintiff's complaint has not set forth "enough facts to state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face," it must be
dismissed. l.Q..._ at 1974.
III. Analysis
Lopez claims the defendants' actions and omissions violated
his rights under the Eighth Amendment. The defendants argue that
they are immune from suit in their official capacities, and that
the complaint fails to state a claim for relief.
-4-
Case 4:25-cv-03045 Document 11 Filed 02/19/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 10

A. E1eventh Amendment IJD1D1mi ty
Lopez seeks damages, but does not specify whether he sues the
defendants in their individual or offic capacities. To the
extent that he sues the defendants in their official capacities,
his claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
"[I]n the absence of consent a suit which the State or one
of s agencies or departments is named as the defendant is
proscribed by the Eleventh Amendment.11	
Pennhurst State Sch. &
Hosp. y. Haldeman, 104 S.Ct. 900, 908(1984). A suit for damages
against a state official in his official capacity is not a suit
against the individual, but against the state. Hafer v. Melo, 112
S.Ct. 358, 361 (1991). The defendants are entitled to dismissal of
Lopez's claims to the extent they seek to hold the defendants
B. E1qhth Amendment
Lopez contends that the events listed above violated his right
to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth
Amendment. To prevail on his Eighth Amendment claims, Lopez
must show that his confinement resulted in a
deprivation that was "objectively,
sufficiently serious." Farmer v. Brennan, 511
U.S. 825, 834, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811
(1994) (internal quotation and citation
omitted). It is well settled that "the
Constitution does not mandate comfortable
prisons," and that prison conditions may be
"restrictive and even harsh" without running
afoul of the Eighth Amendment. Rhodes v.
Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347, 349, 101 S.Ct.
2392, 69 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981); see also i,ct_._ at
347, 101 S.Ct. 2392 (noting that such
-5-
Case 4:25-cv-03045 Document 11 Filed 02/19/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 10

conditions are "part of
criminal offenders pay
against society").
the penalty that
for their offenses
Hernandez v. Velasguez, 522 F.3d 556, 560 {5th Cir. 2008).
A two-part test determines whether a prisoner
has established a constitutional violation
[under the Eighth Amendment]. Woods [v.
Edwards, 51 F.3d [577] at 581 [(5th Cir.
1995)]. , he must demonstrate the
objective component of conditions "so serious
as to deprive prisoners of the minimal measure
of life's necess ies, as when it denies the
prisoner some basic human need." Id.
(quotation omitted). Second, under a
subjective standard, the saner must
establish that the responsible prison
officials acted with deliberate indifference
to his conditions of confinement.
Harper v. Showers, 174 F.3d 716, 719-20 {5th Cir. 1999) {footnotes
omitted). Lopez's claims fail to satisfy this standard.
1. Co1d Tmgperature
Lopez alleges that temperatures inside the unit were below
freezing for three days. Lopez does not contend that he was
deprived of blankets, jackets, or other items of warm clothing and
bedding.
In Ruiz v, LeBlanc, 643 Fed. App'x 358 (5th Cir. ,2016), the
Fi Circuit held that exposure to cold temperatures did not
violate the Eighth Amendment when the plaintiff has access to
blankets and warn clothing. Id. at 361 (discussing Bibbs y. Early,
541 f.3d 267, 275 (5� Cir. 2008)). Lopez had access to such items,
and therefore fails to state an Eighth Amendment claim.
-6-
Case 4:25-cv-03045 Document 11 Filed 02/19/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 10

2. Lack of Recreation
Lopez alleges that he was only allowed recreation about a
dozen times over a one year period, or approximately once per
month. Lopez also acknowledges that he was disciplined three times
during this period, resulting in 135 days of restricted recreation.
Complaint at 16-17. Factoring in the disciplinary measures,
Lopez's complaint amounts to a claim that he received a dozen days
of recreation in a 230 day period, or an average of one day of
recreation every 19 days. This fails to state a claim under the
Eighth Amendment. See, �, Peterson v. Peshoff, 216 F.3d 1079
{5th • 2000) {plaintiff's "contention that he was deprived of
outdoor exercise for approximately 47 days is frivolous").
3. Food Schedu1e
Lopez alleges that meals were not served "at proper times."
He does not allege that he was deprived of any meal, or that he
suffered any injury. These allegations do not state a claim for an
Eighth Amendment violation. � Talib v. Gilley, 138 F.3d 211, 214
n.3 (5th Cir. 1998) ("Missing a mere one out of every nine s is
hardly more than that
period.")
sed by many working citizens over the same
4. Lack of Water
Lopez alleges that the water in his cell was turned off from
6 PM on June 19 until 6 AM on June 20. He does not allege that he
suffered any injury as a result. Lopez acknowledges that he was
-7-
Case 4:25-cv-03045 Document 11 Filed 02/19/26 in TXSD Page 7 of 10

informed that the water was cut off because another inmate flooded
his cell.
"Like other Eighth Amendment claims, a
conditions-of-confinement claim must satisfy tests for both
objective and subjective components.� Hudson v. McMillian, 503
U.S. 1, 8, 112 S.Ct. 995, 999, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992). For the
objective component, 'extreme deprivations are required to make out
a conditions-of-confinement claim.' Id. at 9, 112 S.Ct. at 1000."
Davis v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1003, 1004 (5th Cir. 1998). Lopez does
not allege an extreme deprivation.
In Davis, the Fifth Circuit held that it did not violate the
Eighth Amendment for an inmate to be confined for three days in a
cell "with blood on the walls and excretion on the floors and bread
loaf on the floor." JQ..._ at 1004 (internal quotation marks
omitted). Lopez was without water for 12 hours overnight. This
deprivation does not come close to being an extreme deprivation and
therefore did not violate the Eighth Amendment.
5. Roach on Food Tray
Lopez alleges that he found a cockroach on one of his food
trays. While this allegation, if true, is unfortunate, a one-time
incident such as this does not amount to the kind of extreme
deprivation necessary to state an Eighth Amendment claim.
�, Williams v. Scott, No. 4:23cv490, 2025 WL 953776 at *6, and
cases cited therein (E.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2025) (finding that gnats in
food did not violate the Eighth Amendment}, rec. adopted, 2025 WL
-8-
Case 4:25-cv-03045 Document 11 Filed 02/19/26 in TXSD Page 8 of 10

950069 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 28, 2025). The roach on Lopez's food tray
did not violate the Eighth Amendment.
6. Forgotten Lunch
Lopez alleges that defendant Carroll forgot to bring him his
lunch one time. "The eighth amendment requires that jails provide
inmates with 'well-balanced meal[s], containing sufficient
nutritional value to preserve health.' Smith v. Sullivan, 553 F.2d
373, 380 (5th Cir.1977)." Green v, Ferrell, 801 F.2d 765, 770 (5th
Cir. 1986). It does not require three meals a day, as long as
those meals that are provided are nutritionally and calorically
adequate. 1.Q..i. (holding that a jail did not violate the Eighth
Amendment by serving only two meals per day). Lopez's allegation
of one isolated missed meal, absent any claim of injury, does not
state a claim for an Eighth Amendment violation.
7. Grievance Responses
Lopez alleges that the defendants did not respond adequately
to his grievances concerning the incidents listed above. While
exhaustion of the grievance process is a prerequisite to filing a
civil rights lawsuit, the Fifth Circuit has held that an inmate
does not have a protected liberty interest in the processing of
grievances. .§.e..§. Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373-74 (5th Cir.
2005). Therefore, the defendants' responses to Lopez's grievances
do not provide grounds for relief.
IV. Conc1usion
-9-
Case 4:25-cv-03045 Document 11 Filed 02/19/26 in TXSD Page 9 of 10

For the foregoing reasons, the defendants' motion to dismiss
(Docket Entry No. 3) is GRANTED and it is ORDERED as follows:
1. To the extent that Lopez seeks damages from the
defendants in their official capacities, his claims are
dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction;
2. All other claims are dismissed with prejudice for failure
to state a claim on which relief can be granted; and
3. This dismissal counts as a strike for purposes of 28
u.s.c. § 1915(g).
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this /'tHt day of February, 2026.
SIM LAKE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-10-
Case 4:25-cv-03045 Document 11 Filed 02/19/26 in TXSD Page 10 of 10