Fenton v. Coffield Unit et al
Filing
19
MEMORANDUM ORDER Adopting 15 Report and Recommendations of the US Magistrate Judge and Entering Final Judgment. It is ORDERED that this civil action is DISMISSED as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. All motions pending in this civil action are DENIED. A copy of this Memorandum Opinion will be provided to the Administrator of the Three Strikes List for the EDTX. Signed by Judge Michael H. Schneider on 5/10/2012. (leh, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
MARK EDWARD FENTON
§
v.
§
COFFIELD UNIT, ET AL.
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:11cv626
MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff Mark Edward Fenton, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit under 42
U.S.C. §1983 complaining of alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights. This Court ordered
that the case be referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and
(3) and the Amended Order for the Adoption of Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United
States Magistrate Judges.
Fenton originally sued the Coffield Unit, “all officers, “administration,” and “all inmates.”
He was ordered to file an amended complaint setting out a short and plain statement of his claim,
and he complied with this order on February 24, 2012.
In his amended complaint, Fenton discussed how officers and inmates were using a “hightech monitoring device” to monitor every word he speaks. He stated that this was done as part of
a “program,” directed at him, which involved both officers and inmates as well as outside
contractors. Fenton explained that this device goes everywhere he does and so he cannot get away
from it, and that everywhere he goes, the unit administrators tell other prisoners about him and make
them part of the “program” to monitor him as well.
After review of the pleadings, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the
lawsuit be dismissed as frivolous. The Magistrate Judge concluded that Fenton’s claims were
“irrational and wholly incredible” and thus could be dismissed as factually frivolous under Neitzke
1
v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Ancara v. Sara Plasma, Inc., 964 F.2d 465, 468 (5th Cir.
1992). Fenton filed objections to the Report on April 30, 2012.
In his objections, Fenton says that his claim is simple - he is in a Texas prison, but he is
additionally being held in “some sort of sadistic program or game” which he is unable to stop or to
break free from. He says that he undergoes “unnecessary harassment” by various officers,
administrators, and inmates, and that he is being “kept as captive for the pleasure and amusement
of these people to play with at their leisure, using all sorts of high tech equipment.” He again asks
that he be removed from the custody of TDCJ and placed in federal custody. Fenton also says that
after he paid an initial partial filing fee of $16.93, an additional sum of $330.00 was removed from
his account and sent to the Court; Fenton states if the Court will not reconsider his case, he wants
this sum refunded to him.
The Magistrate Judge accurately determined that Fenton’s claims are “irrational and wholly
incredible.” Williams v. Collins, slip op. no. 92-4921 (5th Cir. 1992) (unpublished) (affirming
dismissal as factually frivolous of complaint that prison officials were pumping toxic gas into an
inmate’s cell); see also Vinson v. Texas Board of Corrections, 901 F.2d 474, 475 (5th Cir. 1990).
Fenton’s objections fail to refute the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion; on the contrary, these objections
refer to Fenton’s claims about the “program” and the “high tech equipment” and thus underscore the
correctness of the Magistrate Judge’s Report.
The Fifth Circuit has stated that when an incarcerated individual files an in forma pauperis
lawsuit, the full amount of the filing fee, $350.00, is due and payable at the moment that the lawsuit
is filed. Hatchet v. Nettles, 201 F.3d 651, 653 (5th Cir. 2000); Gay v. Texas Dept. of Corrections,
State Jail Division, 117 F.3d 240, 242 (5th Cir. 1997). There is no statutory provision for a refund
of a portion of that fee. Fenton’s request for a refund thus cannot be granted.
The Court has conducted a careful de novo review of the pleadings in this cause, the Report
of the Magistrate Judge, and the Plaintiff’s objections thereto. Upon such de novo review, the Court
2
has concluded that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct and that the Plaintiff’s objections
are without merit. It is accordingly
ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s objections are overruled and the Report of the Magistrate
Judge (docket no. 15) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further
ORDERED that the above-styled civil action be and hereby is DISMISSED as frivolous and
.
for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. §1915A. It is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall provide a copy of this Memorandum Opinion to the
Administrator of the Strikes List for the Eastern District of Texas. Finally, it is
ORDERED that any and all motions which may be pending in this civil action are hereby
DENIED.
It is SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 10th day of May, 2012.
____________________________________
MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
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?