Wilson v. State of Tennessee

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, the Clerk is DIRECTED to file this action without the prepayment of costs or fees or security therefor as of the date the complaint was received. However, for the reasons stated below, process shall not issue and this action is DISMISSED. The Court CERTIFIES that any appeal from this action would not be taken in good faith and would be totally frivolous. Because the plaintiff is in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction, she is herewi th ASSESSED the civil filing fee of $350.00, payments to be submitted as set forth.Signed by District Judge Pamela L Reeves on 5/6/14. (c/m, cc Warden of the Bledsoe County Correctional Complex, the Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Correction, the Attorney General for the State of Tennessee and the Court's financial deputy) (ADA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE

CHRISTINA WILSON #523288,
Plaintiff,
v.

No.:

3:14-cv-146-PLR-CCS

STATE OF TENNESSEE,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

The Court is in receipt of a pro se prisoner's civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. It appears from the application that
the plaintiff lacks sufficient financial resources to pay the $350.00 filing fee. Accordingly,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4), the Clerk is DIRECTED to file this action without the
prepayment of costs or fees or security therefor as of the date the complaint was received.
However, for the reasons stated below, process shall not issue and this action is
DISMISSED.
In order to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff must establish that she was
deprived of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law. Black v. Barberton
Citizens Hospital, 134 F.3d 1265, 1267 (6th Cir. 1998); O'Brien v. City of Grand Rapids,
23 F.3d 990, 995 (6th Cir. 1994); Russo v. City of Cincinnati, 953 F.2d 1036, 1042 (6th Cir.

1992). See also Braley v. City of Pontiac, 906 F.2d 220, 223 (6th Cir. 1990) ("Section 1983
does not itself create any constitutional rights; it creates a right of action for the vindication
of constitutional guarantees found elsewhere.").
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), district courts must screen prisoner
complaints and sua sponte dismiss those that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim
for relief, or are against a defendant who is immune. See, e.g., Benson v. O'Brian, 179 F.3d
1014 (6th Cir. 1999).
Responding to a perceived deluge of frivolous lawsuits, and, in particular,
frivolous prisoner suits, Congress directed the federal courts to review or
"screen" certain complaints sua sponte and to dismiss those that failed to state
a claim upon which relief could be granted, that sought monetary relief from
a defendant immune from such relief, or that were frivolous or malicious.
Id. at 1015-16 (6th Cir. 1999) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A).
Plaintiff is in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction and the
defendant is the State of Tennessee. Her complaint concerns her conviction for robbery in
the Criminal Court for Knox County, Tennessee, and subsequent appeal. She claims that the
Knox County Criminal Court denied her request for production of the trial transcripts and
related court documents, which hinders her ability to perfect her appeal, and constitutes a
denial of access to the courts in violation of her constitutional rights. Plaintiff asks this Court
to enter an order directing that she be furnished copies of the trial transcripts and other court
documents, at the State's expense.

2

The law is settled that a federal court should not interfere in pending state court
proceedings absent the threat of "great and immediate" irreparable injury. Younger v. Harris,
401 U.S. 37, 46 (1971). Such is not the case in this action. In addition, a federal district
court has no authority to issue an order directing a state court or state judicial officers in the
performance of their duties. Haggard v. Tennessee, 421 F.2d 1384, 1386 (6th Cir. 1970).
The doctrine which evolved from Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 414-16 (1923),
and District of Columbia v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983), holds that a district court
lacks jurisdiction to review, modify, or reverse a judicial determination made by a state court,
even if that determination "is anchored to alleged deprivations of federally protected ...
rights." Feldman, 460 U.S. at 485. Hence, although the plaintiff alleges that she has been
deprived of fair proceedings in the state court, this Court has no subject matter jurisdiction
to grant the plaintiff the relief she requests.
Although this Court is mindful that a pro se complaint is to be liberally construed,
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972), it is quite clear that the plaintiff has not
alleged the deprivation of any constitutionally protected right, privilege or immunity, and,
therefore, the Court finds her claims to be frivolous under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A.
It appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts which would entitle her to
relief, Malone v. Colyer, 710 F.2d 258 (6th Cir. 1983), and that plaintiff's claim lacks an
arguable basis in law and fact, Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Therefore, this
action is DISMISSED sua sponte, as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which

3

relief can be granted under § 1983. The Court CERTIFIES that any appeal from this action
would not be taken in good faith and would be totally frivolous. See Rule 24 of the Federal
Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Because the plaintiff is in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction, she
is herewith ASSESSED the civil filing fee of $350.00.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(b)(1)(A) and (B), the custodian of the plaintiff's inmate trust account at the institution
where he now resides is directed to submit to the Clerk, U.S. District Court, 800 Market
Street, Suite 130, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902, as an initial partial payment, whichever is
greater of:
(a)

twenty percent (20%) of the average monthly deposits to the plaintiff's inmate

trust account; or
(b)

twenty percent (20%) of the average monthly balance in the plaintiff's inmate

trust account for the six-month period preceding the filing of the complaint.
Thereafter, the custodian shall submit twenty percent (20%) of the plaintiff's
preceding monthly income (or income credited to the plaintiff's trust account for the
preceding month), but only when such monthly income exceeds ten dollars ($10.00), until
the full filing fee of three hundred fifty dollars ($350.00) as authorized under 28 U.S.C. §
1914(a) has been paid to the Clerk. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).
The Clerk is DIRECTED to send a copy of this Memorandum and Order to the
Warden of the Bledsoe County Correctional Complex, the Commissioner of the Tennessee

4

Department of Correction, and the Attorney General for the State of Tennessee to ensure that
the custodian of the plaintiff's inmate trust account complies with that portion of the Prison
Litigation Reform Act relating to payment of the filing fee.

The Clerk is further

DIRECTED to forward a copy of this Memorandum and Order to the Court's financial
deputy.

ENTER:

5