Reyes v. Hauck

339 F. Supp. 195, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14743
District Court, W.D. Texas·Decided March 9, 1972·No. Civ. A. SA72CA11·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

*196 ORDER DISMISSING CAUSE

SPEARS, Chief Judge.

This case, brought pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983, is an excellent example of the way in which the already overburdened federal courts are being abused by some jail inmates, whose irresponsible attempts to raise every picayunish and/or imagined complaint to the level of the violation of a constitutional right, serve only to consume time and effort that should be available for the consideration of meritorious causes.

Petitioner alleges that the rules and regulations, of the Bexar County Jail require that he tell a guard what is wrong with him before his name can be placed on the doctor’s list. As a consequence, he contends that the rules and regulations constitute cruel and unusual punishment, in that they add punitive measures to those already legally meted out by the courts. In his own words, “the sole question presented by the complaint is whether penal authorities may promulgate rules and regulations, which if proven true, would denie [sic] inmates medical attention at the whim and caprice of penal authorities, none of whom are qualified in any way to diagnose or prescribe medical treatment in any way.” According to petitioner, on December 30, 1971, he requested a guard to place his name on the doctor’s list, but this request was refused, because, according to him, he declined to discuss his illness with anyone except the doctor or nurse in charge of the hospital. He says that he had been advised that he couldn’t talk to anyone unless he told the guard what was wrong with him.

The respondents have replied under oath, setting out in detail the procedures followed in handling the medical complaints of prisoners. Affidavits of the jail administrator 1 and the medical doctor 2 reflect that inquiries as to the *197 nature of any complaints are made by the guards in order to assist the staff in expediting the medical needs of the prisoners. In this way, if an emergency exists with respect to any prisoner, he can be immediately brought to the central cage area and the medical staff notified. There is no suggestion anywhere in the procedure that a prisoner will not be given medical attention unless he tells the guard what is wrong with him, and the existence of any rule to that effect is categorically denied in the answer sworn to by the sheriff, the chief jailer, the guard captain, and the jail guard to whom petitioner says he directed the request for medical services. While petitioner vaguely refers to his “illness”, and infers that he may not have received treatment, there is no showing that he was ever denied any essential medical treatment, or that his health was placed in jeopardy. On the contrary, the medical records reflect that between February 26, 1971 and January 7, 1972, petitioner’s complaints received attention from medical authorities connected with the jail on at least 24 occasions, and the accuracy of these records has not been challenged. See Weaver v. Beto, 429 F. 2d 505 (5th Cir. 1970).

Under the circumstances, therefore, this Court finds: (1) that petitioner has wholly failed to demonstrate that there is any rule or regulation in existence at the Bexar County Jail which denies to him, or to any other inmate, medical attention at the whim and caprice of penal authorities; and (2) that there is nothing about petitioner’s alleged conversation with the guard, which, even if true, would raise his complaint to the level of cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Martinez v. Mancusi, 443 F.2d 921 (2nd Cir. 1970). Federal Courts will not interfere with the conduct, management and disciplinary control of jails, except in extreme cases, and there is certainly nothing in this case to suggest the possibility of any “conduct that shocks the conscience”. See Church v. Hegstrom, 416 F.2d 449 (2nd Cir. 1969). Also see: Weaver v. Beto, 429 F.2d 505 (5th Cir. 1970); and Campbell v. Wainwright, 416 F.2d 949 (5th Cir. 1969).

Finding that the pleadings and briefs, together with the files and records herein, conclusively show that there has been no violation of petitioner’s constitutional rights, and that there is no merit to the complaint for declaratory, injunctive or monetary relief, this cause is hereby dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Reyes v. Hauck, 339 F. Supp. 195, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14743 (W.D. Tex. 1972).

339 F. Supp. 195 (Reyes v. Hauck) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Robinson v. Jordan
355 F. Supp. 1228 (N.D. Texas, 1973)