Chi v. Jones
ORDER overruling objections and adopting 9 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 7/28/17. (tkd, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS B. JONES, ET AL.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16cv377
ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Anson Chi, an inmate formerly confined at the Federal Correctional Complex in
Beaumont, Texas, proceeding pro se, brought the above-styled motion for an order to show cause
for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order.
The Court referred this matter to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate
Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this Court.
The Magistrate Judge recommends this action be dismissed.
The Court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge filed pursuant to such referral, along with the record and pleadings. Plaintiff filed
objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. This requires a de novo review
of the objections in relation to the pleadings and the applicable law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b).
After careful consideration, the Court concludes plaintiff''s objections are without merit. For
the reasons set forth in the Report, plaintiff's claims are without merit and moot. Further, to the
extent plaintiff's claims might be interpreted as asserting a potential future claim of the denial of
access to the courts, plaintiff's claim is also without merit.
To prevail on a claim that his right of access to courts has been violated, a prisoner must
demonstrate prejudice or harm by showing that his ability to pursue a "nonfrivolous," "arguable"
legal claim was hindered by the defendant's actions. See Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403,
415, 122 S.Ct. 2179, 153 L.Ed.2d 413 (2002); Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351, 116 S.Ct. 2174,
135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996). A prisoner must demonstrate actual injury, that is, the prisoner must be
able to show the complained of acts "somehow defeated his ability to pursue a legal claim." See
Turner v. Epps, 460 F. App'x 323, 328 (5th Cir. 2012). "[F]rivolous filings cannot form the basis
of an access-to-the-courts retaliation complaint." Lewis v. Guillot, 583 F. App'x 332, 333 (5th Cir.
2014); Johnson v. Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 299, 311 (5th Cir. 1997). The plaintiff must identify the
nonfrivolous, arguable underlying claim. See Christopher, 536 U.S. at 415.
The plaintiff in this case has, at most, only been delayed in his ability to file a potential
lawsuit. Any potential claim is premature at this stage. Further, plaintiff has failed to state any harm
associated with this temporary delay. Moreover, plaintiff has failed to identify any nonfrivolous
claim or any associated prejudice.
Accordingly, plaintiff's objections are OVERRULED. The findings of fact and conclusions
of law of the Magistrate Judge are correct and the report of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED. A
final judgment will be entered in this case in accordance with the Magistrate Judge's
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 28 day of July, 2017.
Ron Clark, United States District Judge
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?