Quick v. Office of the Executive Director et al
Filing
11
MEMORANDUM OPINION and Order dismissing pltf's complaint without prejudice pursuant to 28 USC 1915(g). Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 9/17/15. (tkd, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BEAUMONT DIVISION
STEVEN WAYNE QUICK
§
VS.
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14cv581
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, §
ET AL.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Steven Wayne Quick, an inmate confined at the Stiles Unit of the Texas Department
of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se, brings this lawsuit
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Office of the Executive Director and the Texas Department
of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.1
Discussion
Plaintiff complains that corruption exists within the prison system. Plaintiff claims anyone
reporting the corruption to authorities or media are either relieved of their duty if they are an
employee or they are retaliated against if they are an inmate. Plaintiff alleges he was retaliated
against in the form of an attempt on his life and the theft of his signature. Plaintiff claims the alleged
retaliation caused him to dismiss a lawsuit against the agency. Plaintiff also complains of staff
training and the general conditions of his confinement.
Analysis
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) prohibits prisoners from repeatedly filing frivolous or malicious
complaints and proceeding on an in forma pauperis basis. Section 1915(g) provides as follows:
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. As a result, their
consent is not needed for the undersigned to make a final determination in this matter. See Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d
530, 532 (5th Cir. 1995).
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 six of plaintiff’s prior suits or appeals have been dismissed as frivolous or for failure
to state a claim.2 As a result, Section 1915(g) is applicable.
As set forth above, plaintiff has had at least six prior lawsuits or appeals dismissed as
frivolous, malicious, and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff’s
allegations are conclusory and factually insufficient to demonstrate he was in imminent danger of
serious physical injury at the time he filed his complaint. See Banos v. O’Guin, 144 F.3d 883, 884
(5th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, section 1915(g) therefore bars plaintiff from proceeding further with
this lawsuit on an in forma pauperis basis.
Order
For the reasons set forth above, plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed without prejudice
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). A final judgment will be entered in this case in accordance with
this order.
SIGNED this 17th day of September, 2015.
_________________________
Zack Hawthorn
United States Magistrate Judge
2
See Quick v. Holder, Civil Action No. 6:90cv235 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 12, 1990) (dismissed as frivolous):
Quick v. Beacum, Civil Action No. 3:05cv1130 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 26, 2005) (dismissed as frivolous); Quick v. Spangler,
Civil Action No. 3:05cv1149 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 1, 2005) (dismissed as frivolous); Quick v. Asst. Dist. Atty., Civil Action
No. 3:05cv1620 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 16, 2005) (dismissed as frivolous and for seeking monetary relief against a defendant
who is immune from such relief), Quick v. Neel, Civil Action No. 3:05cv2187 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 27, 2006), and Quick v.
Rosenberry, Civil Action No. 3:05cv2188 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 15, 2006).
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?