Fifth Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Suit by Civilly Committed Texan
by Matt Clarke
On October 7, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the dismissal of a Texas civil rights lawsuit challenging conditions of confinement at the Texas Civil Commitment Center (TCCC) in Littlefield, Texas.
Richard A. Dunsmore was civilly committed as a sexually violent predator (SVP) pursuant to Chapter 841 of the Texas Health and Safety Code. He is being held at TCCC. Dunsmore, who has a lengthy litigation history, filed, pro se,an in forma pauperis federal civil rights complaint, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, challenging certain aspects of his conditions of confinement at TCCC. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas reviewed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and dismissed it without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Because the court held that amendment would be futile, Dunsmore was not given an opportunity to amend the complaint. He appealed.
The Fifth Circuit noted that the lawsuit named as defendants only Stephanie Muth, Commissioner of the Texas Department of Family Protective Services (DFPS), and Cecile Erwin Young, Commissioner of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC), in their official capacities; but it was difficult to see how either official was personally involved in or responsible for the conditions at TCCC since that facility is administered by the Texas Civil Commitment Office (TCCO), a separate government agency that is not under the purview of DFPS or HHSC. The district court had noted this problem and dismissed the complaint without prejudice to allow Dunsmore to refile the claims of inadequate medical care with the proper defendants named.
The complaint had other defects, according to the appellate court. Dunsmore argued that he should not be required to use the TCCO grievance procedure but instead should be allowed to file complaints about TCCC with DFPS and HHS like other Texas citizens who can file such complaints. The Court agreed with the district court’s holding that Dunsmore is not similarly situated as other Texas citizens because he is a civilly committed SVP and the different treatment clearly flows from that status. Further, the Court found there was a “reasonably conceivable” rational basis for requiring TCCC’s residents to use the TCCO grievance procedure and Dunsmore’s argument that TCCO officials have a funding-related motivation to cover up inadequacies at TCCC could not overcome it.
Dunsmore also failed to show a protected liberty or property interest, dooming his procedural due process claims. See: Jordan v. Fisher, 832 F.3d 805 (5th Cir. 2016). His vague claim, without supporting allegations of fact, of having been “extorted” out of $3,100 due to a clerical error could not overcome this defect. Neither could the mere fact that he was being deprived of liberty due to the civil commitment especially when he did not claim that the state lacked adequate procedures to redress the issues. See: Richardson v. Tex. Sec’y of State, 978 F.3d 220 (5th Cir. 2020).
The Court rejected Dunsmore’s claim that the district court should have let him amend the complaint rather than dismissing it, holding it is appropriate to dismiss a complaint when amendment would be futile. The Court declined to appoint Dunsmore an attorney and affirmed the dismissal. See: Dunsmore v. Muth, 154 F.4th 360 (5th Cir. 2025).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Dunsmore v. Muth,
| Year | 2025 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 154 F.4th 360 (5th Cir. 2025) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |