Douglas v. Dunn et al

UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
DOUGLAS EUGENE MILES,
Plaintiff,
§
§
§
§
vs.
JOHN S DUNN, et al.,
Defendants.
§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:25-CV-05303
§
§
§
§
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The plaintiff, Douglas Eugene Miles (Jail #90976), filed this prisoner civil rights
Complaint while confined in the Jefferson County Jail. 	Doc. No . 1. 	He alleges negligent
mental healthcare at the John S. Dunn Behavioral Sciences Center in Houston, Texas. Id.
at 2. At the Court's request, Miles filed a More Definite Statement. 	Doc. No. 9. 	Miles
proceeds pro se and in forma pauper is. 	The Court has screened this case as required and
concludes that it should be DISMISSED for the reasons set forth below.
I. 	LEGAL STANDARDS
This complaint is governed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (the "PLRA"). The
Court is required to scrutinize the complaint and dismiss the case, in whole or in part, if it
determines that the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); 28 U.S.C . § 1915(e)(2)(B). On review, the Court must identify
cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint or any portion thereof, if the court determines
1/ 5
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
July 29, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-05303 Document 11 Filed 07/29/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 5

that the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b). 	In conducting that analysis, a court reviews a prisoner's pro se
pleading under a less stringent standard than those drafted by an attorney and construes it
liberally, including all reasonable inferences which can be drawn from it. 	Haines v.
Kern er, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); Alexander v. Ware, 714 F.2d 416,419 (5th Cir. 1983).
A complaint may be dismissed as frivolous if it lacks any arguable basis in law or
fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,325 (1989); Talib v. Gilley, 138 F.3d 211,213 (5th
Cir. 1998). "A complaint lacks an arguable basis in law if it is based on an indisputably
meritless legal theory, such as if the complaint alleges violation of a legal interest which
clearly does not exist." Harris v. Hegmann, 	198 F.3d 153, 156 (5th Cir.1999) (citing
Harper v. Showers, 174 F.3d 716, 718 (5th Cir.1999) (quoting Davis v. Scott, 157 F.3d
1003, 1005 (5th Cir.1998)). 	A review for failure to state a claim is governed by the same
standard used to review a dismissal pursuant to Rule l 2(b )( 6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. See Newsome v. EEOC, 301 F.3d 227,231 (5th Cir. 2002). Under that standard,
courts must assume that plaintiffs factual allegations are true, and a dismissal is proper
only if it appears that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proven
consistent with the allegations. Id. (citations omitted).
II. 	DISCUSSION
Miles 	alleges that from 	November 25, 	2024, 	to 	February 	25, 	2025, 	he 	was
involuntarily detained in the John S. Dunn Behavioral Sciences Center ("Dunn Center").
2/5
Case 4:25-cv-05303 Document 11 Filed 07/29/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 5

He appears to claim that he received medications and treatment without his consent, but
his allegations are fantastical and difficult to decipher. He names the Dunn Center and its
administration, Dr. Salih-Selek, PhD., Nurse Practitioner Meena Abraham, and 2 unknown
trainees as the defendants.
Miles alleges that he did not sign any contract for admission or consent to his "dead
name" being placed on his wristband. 	Doc. No. 9 at 2. 	He says that Dr. Salih-Selek
negligently misdiagnosed his condition as "psychosis" because he claims that his name
includes hyphens and colons. Id. 	He states that medical providers administrated "probate
court ordered" medications including Risperidone under threat of holding him down. 	Id.
He sues Nurse Practitioner Meena Abraham "for the 	deliberate 	indifference 	of the
Claimant's legal power with the corrected-nativity status and: by the void of the statutory
oaths and bonds" and "with the knowledge of the complaints of the side effects of the
chemicals." Id.
His claims against the two John Doe defendants are similarly opaque. 	He does not
allege facts to show that either of them did anything specific that caused him harm. See id.
at 3. 	He generally alleges that the court-ordered Risperidone for violent offenders is a
powerful sedative and that he had to attend group meetings daily . Id. at 4.
Miles does not plead facts to show that any defendant was deliberately indifferent
to his medical or mental health needs. 	He does not state facts to show that any medical
provider or other defendant "refused to treat him, ignored his complaints, intentionally
treated him incorrectly, or engaged in any similar conduct that would clearly evince a
3 I 5
Case 4:25-cv-05303 Document 11 Filed 07/29/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 5

wanton disregard for any serious medical needs." Domino v. Tex. Dep 't Criminal Justice ,
239 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir. 2001). To the extent that he complains that he was negligently
misdiagnosed or contends that he disagreed with the course of treatment, Miles's mere
disagreement with the course of treatment provided is not sufficient to show deliberate
indifference, see Gibson v. Collier, 920 F.3d 212, 220 (5th Cir. 2019); Gobertv . Caldwell,
463 F.3d 339, 346 (5th Cir. 2006); Domino , 239 F.3d at 756, which requires wanton, or
reckles s, disregard, see Johnson v. Treen , 759 F.2d 1236, 1238 (5th Cir. 1985).
In addition, Miles does not plead facts to show that he was physically injured in
connection with the 	acts 	or omissions 	of any 	of the defendants. 	The PLRA bars
compensatory damages against defendants in their individual capacity where, as here, the
plaintiff does not state facts to show a physical injury or a sexual assault as defined by the
PLRA. 	See 42 U.S.C . § 1997e(e). Therefore, even if his pleadings were intelligible and
stated a claim, he could not recover compensatory damages. 	Likewise, Plaintiff reports
that he is no longer at the Dunn Center. 	Therefore, any claim for injunctive relief against
the defendants is moot.
III. 	CONCLUSION AND ORDER
4 / 5
Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. 	This 	case 	is 	DISMISSED 	with 	prejudice 	under 	28 	U.S.C. 	§§ 1915A(b),
1915(e)(2)(B), for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted.
2. 	All pending motions, if any, are DENIED.
3. 	This dismissal constitutes a "strike" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 	The
Case 4:25-cv-05303 Document 11 Filed 07/29/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 5

record.
5 / 5
Clerk of Court shall send a copy of this dismissal to the Clerk of the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, 515
Rusk Street, Houston, Texas, 77002, Attention: Three-Strikes List Manager, at
the following email: Three_Strikes@txs.uscourts.gov
The Clerk's Office will enter this Order, providing a correct copy to all parties of
-, ,.~SIGNED this __	v 	__ day of July 2026.
ANDREW S. HANEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:25-cv-05303 Document 11 Filed 07/29/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 5