Elijah Ratcliff v. City of Livingston, Texas, et al

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [10-40631 Affirmed ] Judge: EGJ , Judge: EMG , Judge: CES Mandate pull date is 01/18/2011 [10-40631]

Elijah Ratcliff v. City Case: 10-40631 Document: 00511333290 of Livingston, Texas, et al

Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/28/2010

Doc. 0

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
December 28, 2010 N o . 10-40631 S u m m a r y Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

E L I J A H W. RATCLIFF, P la in t iff - Appellant v. C I T Y OF LIVINGSTON, TEXAS; MATT PARRISH, Detective with the L iv in g s to n Police Department; STATE OF TEXAS; TEXAS DEPARTMENT O F CRIMINAL JUSTICE; BRADSHAW STATE JAIL; ROBERT SHAW, W a r d e n ; UNIDENTIFIED GIBSON, Officer; UNIDENTIFIED KAISER, O ffic e r ; UNIDENTIFIED PERALES, Sergeant; MARION A. SMITH, Tax A s s e s s o r Collector; DANETTE MILLICAN, Tax Assessor Collector of Houston C o u n ty , Texas; ELIZABETH E. COKER; MICHELLE HUNTER, State Bar of T e x a s ; STATE BAR OF TEXAS; CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF A M E R IC A , D e fe n d a n t s - Appellees

A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Eastern District of Texas, Lufkin U S D C No. 9:09-CV-147

B e fo r e JOLLY, GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:*

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.

*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-40631 Document: 00511333290 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/28/2010

No. 10-40631 I n his complaint and three amended complaints, Elijah W. Ratcliff (" R a tc liff" ) filed suit against fifteen defendants, for alleged violations of various c iv il rights statutes, including 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1988. I n his original and first amended complaint, Ratcliff alleged that the City o f Livingston, Texas, and one of its police officers (the "Municipal Defendants") d is c r im in a t e d and retaliated against him because of his association with civil r ig h t s and economic development, by placing unreasonable preconditions on u tilit y services. For this claim, he sought damages of $300,000. He also alleged t h a t the defendants refused to provide security services and facilitated burglary, t h e ft , and vandalism of his property, in addition to filing false charges against h im , resulting in his arrest and imprisonment. d a m a g e s of $33,000,000. I n an amended complaint, he added as defendants the State of Texas, the T e x a s Department of Criminal Justice ("TDCJ"), the Bradshaw State Jail, C o r r e c t io n s Corporation of America ("CCA), Warden Robert Shaw, Sergeant G ip s o n , Sergeant Perales, and Officer Kaiser (the "State Defendants"). He s o u g h t $500,000 in actual damages and $11,000,000 in compensatory damages fr o m the State Defendants for "multiple and repetitious breaches" of his civil r ig h t s . He alleged that the State Defendants enabled and encouraged thievery b e c a u s e they are opposed to civil rights revelations by him as an attorney and c iv il rights advocate. He alleged that Captain Latham (who is not named as a d e fe n d a n t ) allowed inmates to steal shoes from his locker and prevented him fr o m obtaining replacement shoes. He further alleged that Sergeant Gipson a t t a c k e d him with a martial arts tactic, knocking him to the concrete floor before h a n d c u ffin g him and taking him to solitary confinement, because he was w e a r in g shower shoes. He alleged that when his personal items were brought t o him later, some postage stamps were missing. In addition, he complained t h a t a policy of the State of Texas, TDCJ, and Warden Shaw caused him not to 2 For this claim, he sought

Case: 10-40631 Document: 00511333290 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/28/2010

No. 10-40631 r e c e iv e notice of a hearing in a civil case he had pending in Polk County, Texas, o r access to the appellate record in that case. H e also added as defendants Marion A. Smith, Tax Assessor and Collector o f Polk County, Texas, and Danette Millican, Tax Assessor and Collector of H o u s t o n County, Texas. He alleged that Smith falsely fabricated courtroom t e s t i m o n y calculated to defame his capacity as a realty owner, and had not r e t r a c t e d such representations. He alleged that Millican falsely compiled county t a x records potentially defaming his integrity as a realty owner and had not r e t r a c t e d such representations. I n a third amended complaint, Ratcliff added as defendants Elizabeth E. C o k e r and the State Bar of Texas. He alleged that Coker had "acted under color o f authority of State law to contravene" his civil rights. He stated that he added t h e State Bar as a party "as an agency of the State of Texas to facilitate the g r a n t in g of complete equitable relief." A ll of the defendants moved for dismissal of the claims against them. The m a g i s t r a t e judge recommended that the claims against the Municipal D e fe n d a n t s , Smith, and Millican be dismissed because Ratcliff's complaints r e lie d on conclusory allegations and did not allege facts showing a plausible e n tit le m e n t to relief. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009); Bell Atlantic C o r p . v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). The magistrate judge recommended that t h e claims against the State of Texas, the TDCJ, and the State Bar of Texas be d is m is s e d for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because they are barred by E le v e n t h Amendment immunity and because Ratcliff had not stated a cognizable c la im against them because they are not "persons" as that term is used in S e c tio n 1983. The magistrate judge recommended dismissal of the claims

a g a in st Warden Shaw, Sergeant Perales, and Officer Kaiser because Ratcliff had n o t alleged any facts showing participation by those defendants in any alleged a c t that violated a constitutional right, and Ratcliff alleged no facts to establish 3

Case: 10-40631 Document: 00511333290 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/28/2010

No. 10-40631 s u p e r v is o r y liability as to Warden Shaw and Sergeant Perales. The magistrate ju d g e recommended that the claims against CCA and the Bradshaw State Jail b e dismissed because they are not "persons" as that term is used in Section 1983. With respect to the excessive force claim against Sergeant Gipson, the m a g is tr a t e judge recommended dismissal because Ratcliff did not allege any h a r m or injury that resulted from Sergeant Gipson's actions and did not allege a n y facts showing that force was impermissibly used to cause harm; instead, R a t c liff's own pleading demonstrated that force was applied as a form of m a in t a in in g discipline. The magistrate judge recommended that the claims a g a in s t Judge Coker be dismissed because Ratcliff did not allege any facts s h o w i n g that the complained of actions by Judge Coker were non-judicial in n a t u r e or that they were taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction. The d is t r ic t court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendations and dismissed all o f the claims agianst all of the defendants. R a t c lif f 's brief on appeal, like his complaints filed in the district court, c o n s is t s of rambling, conclusional, and irrelevant allegations, peppered with n u m e r o u s citations. He has not identified any legal error by the district court, o r any facts that would support a claim of liability entitling him to relief against a n y of the defendants. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed fo r the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge's reports, as adopted by the d is t r ic t court. A F F IR M E D .

4