Lang v. City Of Port Arthur et al

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM OPINION regarding plaintiff's claims. Signed by Magistrate Judge Keith F. Giblin on 11/17/2014. (bjc, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BEAUMONT DIVISION
DON LANG

§

VS.

§

CITY OF PORT ARTHUR, ET AL.

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14cv481

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Don Lang, an inmate confined at the Connally Unit of the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se, brings the above-styled
lawsuit against the City of Port Arthur, Mark Blanton, and Reagan Sweat. 1
Discussion
Plaintiff complains of the denial of due process and slander regarding a police report written
by defendant Sweat which plaintiff claims is conclusory and insufficient to establish his good faith
for purposes of qualified immunity. Plaintiff claims the City of Port Arthur “may be liable for
wrongfully affixing seal to that offense report.” Plaintiff claims defendants Sweat and the City of
Port Arthur were acting under the color of law on July 15, 2007 and during the subsequent criminal
proceedings, depriving plaintiff of his civil rights. Defendant Mark Blanton is the Chief of Police
for the City of Port Arthur, Texas.
Along with his complaint, plaintiff submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis
in this action.

1

This case was directly assigned to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to this district’s General Order
14-10. Plaintiff has provided voluntary written consent to have the assigned United States magistrate judge conduct all
further proceedings in this case, including trial and entry of final judgment in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The
defendants in this action have not been served; thus, they are not parties to the action at this time. Therefore their consent
is not needed to make a final determination in the case. See Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 532 (5th Cir. 1995).

Analysis
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) prohibits prisoners from repeatedly filing frivolous or malicious
complaints. Section 1915(g) provides as follows:
In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action
[in forma pauperis] . . . if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while
incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the
United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under
imminent danger of serious physical injury.
At least three of plaintiff’s prior suits or appeals have been dismissed as frivolous, malicious,
or for failure to state a claim.2 As a result, Section 1915(g) is applicable. The allegations set forth
in plaintiff’s complaint do not demonstrate that he was in “imminent danger of serious physical
injury.” Section 1915(g) therefore bars plaintiff from proceeding with this lawsuit on an in forma
pauperis basis.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, plaintiff is barred from proceeding on an in forma pauperis
basis. Accordingly, the above-styled action will be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). An appropriate final judgment shall be entered in accordance with this
Memorandum Opinion.
Hello This is a Test
SIGNED this 17

day of

November

, 2014.

KEITH F. GIBLIN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

See Lang v. United States, 1:14cv154 (E.D. Tex. July 14, 2014)(dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state
a claim); Lang v. Monroe, 5:10cv676 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 7, 2011) (dismissed as frivolous, for failure to state a claim, and
because he sought monetary damages from immune defendants); and Lang v. Sweat, Civil Action No. 1:12cv48 (E.D.
Tex. May 21, 2012) (dismissed as frivolous and failure to state a claim)..