Opinion

Clarence Brown v. Allison Taylor

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Filed
Jun 5, 2020
Status
Unpublished
Nature of suit
Prisoner w/ out Counsel
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 11.8%

The opinion

Case: 18-50728 Document: 00515442113 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/05/2020

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

No. 18-50728

FILED

June 5, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

CLARENCE D. BROWN, Clerk

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

MARSHA MCLANE, Executive Director, OVSOM; DIANA LEMON, In Her

Official and Individual Capacity as Program Specialist/Case Manager

OVSOM; BRIAN COSTELLO, In His Official and Individual Capacity as

President, Avalon Correctional Services, Incorporated; OFFICE OF

VIOLENT SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT; AVALON CORRECTIONAL

SERVICES, INCORPORATED; CARLOS MORALES, In His Official and

Individual Capacity as Facility Director; ALLISON TAYLOR,

Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:13-CV-17

Before CLEMENT, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

We affirm the district court’s judgment dismissing Brown’s claims.

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

Case: 18-50728 Document: 00515442113 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/05/2020

No. 18-50728

In Brown v. Taylor, 677 F. App’x 924 (5th Cir. 2017), this court vacated

the district court’s dismissal of plaintiff Clarence Brown’s complaint and

remanded for further proceedings. On remand, the district court allowed

Brown to file a second amended complaint, but only as to his individual

capacity damages claims. 1 Defendants moved to dismiss Brown’s claims under

Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The district court

dismissed Brown’s claims with prejudice. It held that he had failed to state a

claim for any constitutional violations and that his Texas statutory claims were

moot.

In his brief before this court, Brown does not challenge the dismissal of

his claims against the Texas Office of Violent Sex Offender Management,

Diana Lemon, Brian Costello, or Carlos Morales. Brown has thus forfeited

these issues, and we affirm the dismissals of all claims against these

defendants.

In this appeal, then, only two defendants remain: Allison Taylor (in her

individual capacity) and Avalon Correctional Services, Incorporated. Brown

presses due-process claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged denial of medical

care and unlawful confinement, and state-law claims under Texas Health &

Safety Code § 841.081 for Taylor and Avalon’s alleged “fail[ure] to provide a

genuine Outpatient Treatment and Supervision Program.” 2

1 The district court dismissed Brown’s “official capacity claims and claims for

declaratory and injunctive relief” with prejudice. This is why Brown’s second amended

complaint named defendants in their individual capacities only and sought only damages.

2 Brown maintains that he also sued Taylor in her official capacity and that Marsha

McLane, Taylor’s successor, was automatically substituted to defend those claims. But Brown

cannot recover against McLane. His federal constitutional claims for damages against

McLane in her official capacity would be barred by the Eleventh Amendment, as would his

state-law claims, regardless of the form of relief sought. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v.

Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 106, 117 (1984).

2

Case: 18-50728 Document: 00515442113 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/05/2020

No. 18-50728

First, Brown argues that the district court erred by analyzing his

constitutional conditions-of-confinement claims under the Eighth Amendment

standard. Brown is correct on this point. The district court should not have

looked to the Eight Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual

punishment. As a civil committee, Brown cannot lawfully be punished at all.

Rather, his conditions-of-confinement claims arise under the Due Process

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

This error, however, was harmless. The district court’s dismissal did not

turn on whether the Eighth Amendment prohibited certain conditions of

confinement. Rather, the court dismissed the claims against Taylor and Avalon

because Brown failed to allege sufficient facts to show their involvement in any

alleged constitutional violations. Brown has never alleged facts establishing

Taylor’s personal involvement in his conditions of confinement. Thus, we

affirm the dismissal of Brown’s individual-capacity claims against Taylor for

essentially the same reasons that the district court articulated. Regarding the

claims again Avalon, Brown has not disputed Avalon’s argument that § 1983

imposes no vicarious liability on it for its employees’ actions. 3 Brown never

identifies the relevant policymaker at Avalon, what the alleged policies were,

or how they led to the conditions of confinement he challenges. So we likewise

affirm the district court’s dismissal of the constitutional claims against Avalon.

We also affirm the dismissal of Brown’s state-law claims, but for

different reasons than the district court articulated. The district court held

that the 2015 amendments to Texas Health & Safety Code § 841.081 mooted

Brown’s claims. But Brown’s claims are for damages, not prospective injunctive

3Our circuit has not decided whether private corporations—unlike municipal ones—

acting under color of state law can be held vicariously liable under § 1983 for their employees’

unconstitutional actions. Neither do we decide this question now. By failing to respond to

Avalon’s argument that it cannot be vicariously liable, Brown has conceded the point.

3

Case: 18-50728 Document: 00515442113 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/05/2020

No. 18-50728

relief, so they are not moot. However, Brown has never responded to

defendants’ dispositive argument that Texas Health & Safety Code § 841.081

lacks a private right of action for damages. Section 1983 creates no such

remedy for violations of state law. Scott v. Fiesta Auto Ctr. of San Antonio, 273

F.3d 1095 (5th Cir. 2001) (“A violation of state law is not cognizable under

§ 1983.”). And Brown has pointed to no Texas statute that does so either.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

4

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.