McClain v. Tehum Care Services, Inc et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
RENARD McCLAIN,
(Inmate# 217-269),
Plaintiff,
vs.
TEHUM CARE SERVICES, INC., et
al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. H-26-3826
§
§
§
§
§
§
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Renard McClain, (Inmate # 217-269), is an inmate at the Roxbury
Correctional Institution in Hagerstown, Maryland. Proceeding prose, he filed what
appears to be a prisoner's civil-rights actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Dkt. 1). The
Court dismisses this action without prejudice for reasons explained briefly below.
I. 	BACKGROUND
As best can be determined from McClain's pleading and publicly available
records, McClain is a ·creditor in a bankruptcy proceeding pending in the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas. 	See In re Tehum Care
Servs., Inc., No. 4:23-bk-90086 (Bankr. S.D. Tex.). 	His underlying claim appears
to be based on allegations of medical malpractice against a physician employed in
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
May 19, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-03826 Document 3 Filed 05/19/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

some capacity by the Debtor. See McClain v. Kavic, et al., No. 1:24-cv-01489-DKC
(D. Md. Aug. 8, 2025).
In April 2026, the bankruptcy trustee sent correspondence to McClain
concerning the possible settlement of his claims against the Debtor within the
bankruptcy proceedings. 	(Dkt. 1, pp. 20-31). 	McClain believes that the proposed
settlement is unfair and the result of corruption and fraud. 	(Id. at 4). 	He seeks an
order lifting the bankruptcy stay and assigning a neutral party to distribute the funds
in the bankruptcy estate. 	(Id.).
II. 	DISCUSSION
McClain brings his action on a form approved for actions under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. 	"Section 1983 does not create any substantive rights, but instead was
designed to provide a remedy for violations of statutory and constitutional rights."
Lafleur v. Texas Dep 't of Health, 126 F.3d 758, 759 (5th Cir. 1997) (per curiam);
see also Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144 n.3 (1979). 	To state a valid claim
under § 1983, a plaintiff must (1) allege a violation of rights secured by the
Constitution or laws of the United States, and (2) demonstrate that the alleged
deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law. See West v.
Atkins, 487 U;S. 42, 48 (1988); Gomez v Galman, 18 F.4th 769, 775 (5th Cir. 2021)
(per curiam). The first element recognizes that "state tort claims are not actionable
under federal law; a plaintiff under [§] 1983 must show deprivation of a federal
2/4
Case 4:26-cv-03826 Document 3 Filed 05/19/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

right." 	Nesmith v. Taylor, 715 F.2d 194, 195 (5th Cir. 1983) (per curiam). 	The
second element means that generally only state actors-not private parties-can be
liable for violations of civil rights. See Frazier v. Bd. of Tr. ofNw. Miss. Reg'! Med.
Ctr., 765 F.2d 1278, 1283 (5th Cir. 1985).
McClain's allegations concerning the proposed settlement of his medical
malpractice action in the bankruptcy case, even liberally construed, do not allege a
violation of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, nor do
his allegations demonstrate that his rights were violated by a person or entity acting
under color of state law. He therefore fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted under §1983, and his claim will be dismissed on this basis;
If McClain is dissatisfied with the bankruptcy trustee's efforts to resolve his
claim, he must seek such relief in the bankruptcy action. 	See, e.g., In re 80 Nassau
Assocs, 169 B.R. 832, 837-38 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) (noting that a bankruptcy case is an
"integrated proceeding" that concerns both the legal validity of a claimant's claim
and the claimant's right to share in the bankruptcy estate).
.3/4
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. McClain's civil rights action is DISMISSED without prejudice to him
seeking relief in the bankruptcy proceedings.
2. Any pending motions are DENIED as moot.
3. An order of dismissal will be separately entered .
Case 4:26-cv-03826 Document 3 Filed 05/19/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to the plaintiff.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas on ___~-w-"--~_,__\'i_·____., 2026.
cp~/~DAVID IDTTNER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4/4
Case 4:26-cv-03826 Document 3 Filed 05/19/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4