The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AMARILLO DIVISION
su □□□ □□
Plaintiff,
2:22-CV-082-Z-BR □□□
ROBERT ALMANZA, JR., et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court are the findings, conclusions, and recommendation (“FCR”) of the United
States Magistrate Judge to grant in part and deny in part the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants.
ECF No. 41. Objections to the findings, conclusions, and recommendation have been filed. ECF
Nos. 42 (Defendants’ Objections), 43 (Plaintiff's Objections). Defendants object on four grounds.
Each is addressed in turn.
First, Defendants object that “Plaintiff failed to establish personal involvement of each
defendant and cannot overcome their qualified immunity.” ECF No. 42 at 1. Specifically,
Defendants claim Plaintiffs pleadings lack “any allegations of who Plaintiff provided actual notice
to, when he did, or how he did.” Jd. That is incorrect. Defendants point to the Amended Complaint
allegations that each Defendant “had actual notice....” Jd (quoting ECF No. 14 at 4-5). In
response to Section IV of his Prisoner’s Civil Rights Compliant form — titled “PARTIES TO
THIS SUIT” — Plaintiff states as to each Defendant: “I told the Defendant about the Danger that
existed However Refused to protect me He displayed ‘Deliberately Indifferent.’” See ECF No. 3
at 4-5,!
Defendants’ actual objection — which is also Defendants’ second objection — is that the
Magistrate Judge considered Plaintiffs Complaint (ECF No. 3) along with his Amended Compliant
(ECF No. 14). See ECF No. 42 at 2 (“Defendants contend the live pleading are unadorned
assertions without any factual enhancement, and as such, the claims against them in the live
pleading should be dismissed.”); see also id. at 3 (“The Report makes numerous citations to the
original complaint . ... However, the Report only cites to the live pleading once... .).
Defendants are correct that “[a]n amended complaint supersedes the original complaint and
renders it of no legal effect unless the amended complaint specifically refers to and adopts or
incorporates by reference the earlier pleading.” ECF No. 42 at 3 (quoting King v. Dogan, 31 F.3d
344, 346 (5th Cir. 1994)). And so, arguably reasonably, Defendants read Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint with blinders — querying how any Defendant could have had actual notice based on
Plaintiffs second-round answers to Section IV. Obviously, the answer has already been alleged:
Plaintiff “told the Defendant[s] about the Danger that existed.”” ECF No. 3 at 4-5.
Pro se allegations are held “to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers,” and this Court is guided by the principle that pleadings must be construed so as to do
justice. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); FED. R. Clv. P. 8(e). Accordingly, it is
this Court’s practice to read pro se filings together when justice so requires. Such is the case here.
The Amended Complaint’s Section IV responses are only sensible when they are read together —
- by incorporating — the first responses. Accord ECF Nos. 14 at 4-5, 3 at 4-5.
! The Court also notes the FCR’s mistaken reference to incorrect Defendants — “Caberera (sic) and Mitchell.” See
ECF No. 42 at 2 n.1; see also ECF No. 41 at 4. The error is de minimis in nature because the analysis is applicable
notwithstanding.
Defendants’ third objection is that “Defendants satisfied their constitutional obligations to
Plaintiff by removing him from the complained-of housing on three occasions while they
conducted investigations.” ECF No. 42 at 3. However, as the FCR notes, conclusory assertions
“{t]hat officials undertook an investigation hardly means they were not deliberately indifferent.
The mere existence of an investigation means little without factual support or documentation.”
ECF No. 41 at 4.1.
Finally, Defendants object that they “should be entitled to qualified immunity.” ECF No.
42 at 6. That may be true. However, “12(b)(6) motions are poor vehicles for assertions of qualified
immunity because they lack the needed factual development that would often be helpful.” ECF
No. 41 at 5 n.3 (internal marks omitted). Rather, “summary judgment is the right way to handle
claims of immunity.” City of Abilene, 2017 WL 3046881, at *13 (N.D. Tex. May 25, 2017) (Frost,
J.), report and recommendation adopted by 2017 WL 3034317 (N.D. Tex. Jul. 17, 2017) (quoting
Jacobs v. City of Chicago, 215 F.3d 758, 775 (7th Cir. 2000) (Easterbrook, J., concurring)). The
Court agrees with the FCR’s analysis that “qualified immunity should remain open at this time” to
develop the factual record regarding the investigations, and thereafter may be the subject of
summary judgment. See ECF No. 41 at 5 n.3.
Therefore, after making an independent review of the pleadings, files, and records in this
case, the Court concludes that the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge are correct. It is therefore ORDERED that the findings, conclusions, and recommendation
of the Magistrate Judge are ADOPTED and the Motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED
IN PART as discussed in the FCR and further elaborated herein.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
September _/ , 2023
Le J. KACSMARYK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE