Stocker v. TDCJ Staff

S.D. Texas

Stocker v. TDCJ Staff

DecidedSeptember 20, 2024

Docket2:23-cv-00248

StatusUnknown

This text of Stocker v. TDCJ Staff (Stocker v. TDCJ Staff) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stocker v. TDCJ Staff, (S.D. Tex. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT September 20, 2024 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

JAMIN STOCKER, § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-CV-00248 § TDCJ STAFF, et al., § § Defendants. §

MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS AND TO RETAIN CASE

Plaintiff Jamin Stocker, appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this prisoner civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s case is subject to screening pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c); 28 U.S.C. §§1915(e)(2), 1915A. For the reasons set forth below and for purposes of screening, the undersigned respectfully recommends that the Court RETAIN Plaintiff’s claims under the First Amendment (free exercise and free speech), the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, et seq., and the Equal Protection Clause against Bobby Lumpkin in his official capacity for declaratory and injunctive relief. The undersigned will order service on this defendant. The undersigned respectfully recommends further that: ● Defendant “TDCJ Staff” be DISMISSED without prejudice; and

1 / 28 ● pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1), Plaintiff’s remaining claims against all other Defendants in their individual capacities be DISMISSED with prejudice as frivolous and/or for failure to state a claim for relief.

I. JURISDICTION

The Court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This case has been referred to the undersigned magistrate judge for case management and making recommendations on dispositive motions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND AND PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS Plaintiff is a prisoner in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Criminal Institutions Division (TDCJ-CID) and is currently housed at the McConnell Unit in Beeville, Texas. Plaintiff’s allegations in this case arise in connection with his current housing assignment. In his Amended Complaint, which is the operative pleading in this case, Plaintiff sues the following defendants: ● Bobby Lumpkin, the TDCJ’s Director (“Director Lumpkin”);

● Placido Samaniego, an Assistant Warden at the McConnell Unit (“Assistant Warden Samaniego”);

● Candace Flannel, an Assistant Warden at the McConnell Unit (“Assistant Warden Flannel”);

● Lieutenant Adan Cavazos, a McConnell Unit official (“Lt. Cavazos”);

● Lieutenant Ildefonsa Barrera, a McConnell Unit official (“Lt. Barrera”);

● Captain Cavazos, a McConnell Unit official (“Capt. Cavazos”);

2 / 28 ● Sergeant R. Martinez, a McConnell Unit official (“Sgt. Martinez”);

● Sergeant Jerry Perez, a McConnell Unit official (“Sgt. Perez”);1

● Sergeant Alaniz, a McConnell Unit official (“Sgt. Alaniz”);

● Sergeant Gilbert Liserio, a McConnell Unit official (“Sgt. Liserio”);

● Officer S. Balderas, a McConnell Unit official (“Officer Balderas”);

● Officer M. Deleon, a McConnell Unit official (“Officer Deleon”);

● Officer B. Cunningham, a McConnell Unit official (“Officer Cunningham”); and

● Sergeant Benavides, a McConnell Unit official (“Sgt. Benavides”).

(D.E. 21, pp. 3-5).2 Plaintiff generally claims that these defendants violated his (1) First Amendment rights (free exercise, free speech and retaliation); (2) his Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights (racial and religious discrimination); and (3) his rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, et seq. (Id. at 3-5, 13-19, 21-24). Plaintiff seeks declaratory, monetary, and injunctive relief. (Id. at 25-27).

1 Despite raising allegations against a McConnell Unit official named “Perez” in his Amended Complaint (D.E. 21, p. 8), More Definite Statement (D.E. 25, p. 4), and Second More Definite Statement (D.E. 29, pp. 2, 5-6, 8-9, 11, 13-14, 19, 23-24, 32), Plaintiff did not formally name Perez as a defendant in this case. Plaintiff instead named Sgt. R Martinez and Sgt. J. Martinez as defendants in this case. (D.E. 21, p. 4). In his More Definite Statement, however Plaintiff, indicated it was “Jerry Perez (not Martinez)” who committed certain discriminatory acts. (D.E. 25, p. 4). After reviewing all of Plaintiff’s pleadings, the undersigned finds it appropriate to enter a separate order substituting “Jerry Perez” in place of “Jerry Martinez” as a defendant in this case.

2 After Plaintiff filed his original two-page letter complaint (D.E. 1), the Clerk docketed this action only against “TDCJ Staff.” Given that Plaintiff has identified numerous individual staff members in the operative Amended Complaint, the undersigned recommends that “TDCJ Staff” be dismissed without prejudice. 3 / 28 As directed by the Court, Plaintiff has filed a More Definite Statement and Second More Definite Statement in which he explains his claims in more detail. Plaintiff alleges the following pertinent facts in his Amended Complaint (D.E. 21), More Definite

Statement (D.E. 25), and Second More Definite Statement (D.E. 29). A. Background allegations Plaintiff, an African-American male, actively practices a religious faith called “Spiritism.” (D.E. 25, p. 1). Plaintiff describes his faith as follows: In general my faith acknowledges that my ancestors, the Divine Spirits and I are connected with each other[,] nature[,] and the universe. Some of the activities I do to practice my faith are meditation, yoga, vegan/vegetarian dieting. Some of the core tenants of my faith as it relates to growing my hair are: adherence to my faith affords me full control over all that pertains to my head; the locking and growth of my hair affords me protection against evil; commitment to my spiritual duty is expressed through the locking and growth of my hair; and the great spiritual responsibility is bestowed upon me for my expressed commitment.

Id. at 1-2. According to Plaintiff, growing his hair in “locs” means to grow is hair in dreadlocks. Id. at 2. Growing his hair in dreadlocks is essential to Plaintiff’s practice of his faith. Id. Plaintiff believes that TDCJ’s grooming policy permits growing his hair in dreadlocks via “approved religious exemption applications.” Id. Plaintiff’s first application for a religious exemption went missing after he placed it in the mailbox of Chaplain Perry. Id. 2-3. Plaintiff and Chaplain Perry completed Plaintiff’s second application. Id. at 3. This application, submitted to Warden Holmes, was never submitted to “Huntsville for review,” and no reason was provided as to why it was not submitted. Id. 4 / 28 B. Allegations of Racial and Religious Discrimination Plaintiff claims he has been subjected to discrimination for: (1) “expressing [his] racial identity by wearing [his] style in a manner entirely consistent with African

descendants[’] culture;” and (2) “wearing [his] hair styled in accordance with [his] sincerely held religious beliefs.” (D.E. 29, pp. 1, 7).

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