Edward B. Lyon, Jr. v. Bryan Collier, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas addressed defendants’ motion to dismiss a pro se state prisoner’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including allegations of retaliation, unconstitutional cool-bed housing assignments, conspiracy, and supervisory liability. The court granted dismissal of the remaining federal claims, largely on failure-to-state-a-claim and qualified-immunity grounds, and dismissed the plaintiff’s state-law claims without prejudice after declining supplemental jurisdiction. The motion was denied as moot as to claims arising at the Clements Unit because those claims had previously been severed and transferred.

Holdings

1. Plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to support a plausible retaliation claim; his allegations were conclusory and based on personal belief rather than a chronology of events from which retaliation could be inferred.
2. Collier is entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiff did not establish violation of a clearly established constitutional right.
3. The DNR form does not decline non-lifesaving medical measures and did not prevent transfer to cool bed housing; no viable constitutional claim arose from the DNR.
4. Plaintiff failed to plead facts sufficient to raise viable claims against Linthicum in either individual or supervisory capacity.
5. Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff stated plausible First Amendment retaliation claims against Collier
2. Whether plaintiff stated plausible § 1983 claims against Linthicum
3. Whether claims arising at Clements Unit should be dismissed for improper venue
4. Whether plaintiff's DNR form created a constitutional right to refuse cool bed housing
5. Whether state law claims should be dismissed

Disposition

affirmed_in_part_reversed_in_part