On April 18, 2002, inmate Roderick Johnson filed an extensive complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, alleging that Texas prison officials failed to protect him from repeated sexual assault and therefore violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause. Johnson brought separate Equal Protection claims for failure to protect because of his race and because of his sexual orientation.

Johnson, a black homosexual, claimed that prison officials failed to protect him from prison gangs that repeatedly raped him and bought and sold him as a sexual slave while he was housed at the Texas prison system's Allred Unit. Plaintiff Johnson was represented by the National Prison Project of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and several private attorneys.

The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings and for summary judgment, asserting qualified immunity and a failure on the prisoner's part to exhaust administrative remedies. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Judge Jerry Buchmeyer) in April, 2003, denied the defendants' motions, and the defendants brought interlocutory appeals. Johnson v. Johnson, No. 02-87, 2003 U.S. Dist. WL 21510816 (N.D.Tex. June 9, 2003).

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Johnson's race-based Equal Protection claims and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings on the remaining claims. Johnson v. Johnson, 385 F.3d 503 (5th Cir. 2004). The Court of Appeals noted that the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, requires that a prisoner exhaust administrative remedies available within the correctional facility before bringing suit under Section 1983 regarding prison conditions. The Court held that Johnson had exhausted the available administrative remedies for his Eighth Amendment claims. The Court also found that Johnson had exhausted remedies for some of his Equal Protection sexual orientation claims because his grievances were sufficient to give prison officials fair notice that there might have been a sexual-orientation-related aspect to Johnson's problems. The Court further held that certain defendant prison officials were not entitled to qualified immunity because they did not reasonably respond to Johnson's grievances and their conduct was clearly illegal.

On remand before the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, the case was reassigned to Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn on January 3, 2005, and on March 22, 2005, the case caption was modified to Johnson v. Wathen to reflect the dismissal of several defendants.

On September 8, 2005, Judge Lynn granted plaintiff Johnson's petition for writs of habeas corpus. The case was tried before a jury which rendered a verdict in favor of the defendants on each of Johnson's claims on October 18, 2005. There was some subsequent litigation over attorney's fees. In January 2006, the court ordered costs against the plaintiff.

On May 23, 2012, the plaintiff moved for the court to grant him a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. The plaintiff filed the motion pro se (on his own behalf). The plaintiff was released from prison and placed on parole in 2003, but he returned to prison in the fall of 2007. The plaintiff alleges that on September 11, 2007, the ACLU contacted the Executive Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice requesting that the plaintiff be placed in “safe keeping” because he was at extreme physical risk. The plaintiff alleges that he was subsequently placed in temporary “safekeeping”. In October 2007, the plaintiff alleges that he was transferred to the New Mexico Department of Corrections under the Interstate Corrections Compact due to concerns for his safety. The plaintiff alleges that on August 9, 2011, he was involuntarily returned back into the custody of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

The plaintiff alleged that immediately upon arrival in Texas he was placed in solitary confinement under punitive conditions. The plaintiff alleged that he was in constant fear that prison officials would follow through with their threats to have him killed in retaliation for his petitioning for the redress of his grievances administratively and through the courts. The plaintiff also alleged that prison officials were being deliberately indifferent to the serious mental health risks posed by the conditions of isolation he was being kept in. The plaintiff alleged his treatment was retaliation for his prior suit against the Texas prison system. He alleged he had filed over 25 administrative grievances with the prison in regard to his treatment. The plaintiff alleged that the publicity surrounding his case will not ensure his safety in the Texas prison system. The plaintiff requested to serve the rest of his sentence in another jurisdiction.

On June 4, 2012, Magistrate Judge Paul D. Stickney was added to the case. On June 4, 2012, the plaintiff moved for the court to appoint him counsel. On August 12, 2012, Judge Stickney ordered a new case to be opened in regard to the plaintiff’s current claims. This new case was 7:12-cv-00138. On September 11, 2012, the case was transferred to the Southern District of Texas. This new case was 4:12-cv-02728. The following dockets have been consolidated with this case: 7:12-cv-00138 (the Northern District of Texas), 4:12-cv-02728 (the Southern District of Texas).

The case was assigned to Judge Sim Lake. On October 4, 2012, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Within his amended complaint, he reiterated his allegations from his May 23, 2012 motion. On February 21, 2013, the defendants moved to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim. On July 22, 2013, Judge Slim granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the case for the plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. The case was dismissed with prejudice. (2013 WL 3816727).

On August 23, 2013, the plaintiff appealed the dismissal of the case to the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On October 1, 2014, Judge W. Eugene Davis, Judge Edith Brown Clement, and Judge Gregg J. Costa affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s case. (WL 4854212) This case is closed.

Tom Madison - 02/11/2006
Victoria Fiengo - 10/22/2018


compress summary