Cooper v. Lopez et al
Filing
5
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL - Pltf's civil rights claims are dismissed as frivolous with prejudice to being asserted again until the HECK Conditions are met. All pending motions are denied. The dismissal of this cause counts as a "strike" under the PLRA. Pltf is warned that, upon accumulation of three "strikes" he will be barred from proceeding ifp in any civil proceeding or appeal unless his suit qualified under 28 USC 1915(g). (Ordered by Judge Mary Lou Robinson on 10/11/2011) (plh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR TFM NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AMARILLO DIVISION
EARL DANIEL COOPER, PRO SE,
also known as EARL D. COOPER,
TDCJ-CID No. 1541308.
$
$
$
$
Plaintiff
$
$
$
V.
ABE LOPEZ, Retired District Court Judge;
RANDALL SIMS, District Attorney;
STEVE DENNY, Assistant District Attomey;
JASON C. LYNCH, Attorney;
MIKE SHOEMAKE, Resigned Sheriff; and
GRAND JURORS, sworn as such at the
January Term A.D. 2008,
2:11-CV-0233
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
I
$
Defendants.
$
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiff EARL DAMEL COOPER, acting pro se and while a prisoner in the custody of
the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, filed suit pursuant
to Title 42,United States Code, section 1983 complaining against the above-named defendants
and has been gtanted permission to proceed in accordance with Title 28, United States Code,
section 1915.
By his complaint, plaintiff claims defendantLOPEZ was District Judge at the 108s
District Court, Potter County, Texas and was "legally responsible for the overall operations, of
judicial proceeding's [sic] within the jurisdiction of said mention [sic] district court, in Amarillo,
Texas." Plaintiff alleges the l08th District Court for Potter County, Texas did not have
jurisdiction to issue an arrest warrant for plaintifl order the extradition of plaintiff, or to bring
plaintiff to trial on November 7,2008 and find him guilty, sentencing him to serve
a term
of
15
years in T.D.C.J. Plaintiff further contends the indictment in his criminal case was flawed.
Plaintiff claims defendant SIMMS, District Attorney, "is legally responsible for the
overall operations, ofjudicial prosecutions, within the jurisdiction of said mention [sic] district
attorney's office in Amarillo, Texas. Plaintiff claims defendant DENNY, Assistant District
Attorney, was the lead Assistant District Attorney assigned to prosecute the criminal case on
which plaintiff is currently serving a sentence in T.D.C.J. Plaintiff alleges that, during the
January 2008 Term defendants SIMMS and DENNY conspired to present and did present
perjured testimony in paragraph one and the enhancement paragraphs one and two.
Plaintiff says defendant LYNCH was his assigned defense counsel, provided through the
indigent defense program. Plaintiff claims with the prosecution and did not challenge the alleged
defects in the indictment.
Plaintiff claims defendant SHOEMAKE was "legally responsible for the overall
operations of law enforcement within" Potter County, Texas. Plaintiff alleges defendant
SHOEMAKE "committed the felony act of serving a warrant without proper judicial jurisdiction,
kidnapping [sic] plaintiff," placing under false arrest, and subjecting him to false imprisonment.
Plaintiff claims the defendant Grand Jurors who served on the January Term, 2008 of the
Grand Jury for the 108m Judicial District in Potter County, Texas, 'owere [all] legally responsible
for the overall operation[s] pursuant to 'Reviewing' alleged evidence, and information, of an
offense" in plaintiff s case and are responsible for their decisions in connection with it.
Plaintiff requests injunctive relief; compensatory damages of $300,000.00 from each
defendant,
jointly and severally; punitive damages of $400,000.00 from each defendant, jointly
and severally; and costs of suit.
JUDICIAL REVIEW
When a prisoner seeks redress from a govemmental entity or officer or employee of a
governmental entity, the Court must evaluate the complaint and dismiss it without service
process,
a
Ali
v.
of
Higgs,892F.2d438,440 (5th Cir. 1990), if it is frivolousr, malicious, fails to state
claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 1915,A.; 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2). The same standards
will
support dismissal of a suit brought under any federal law by a prisoner confined in any jail,
prison, or other correctional facility, where such suit concerns prison conditions. 42 U.S.C.
1997e(c)(1)
. A Spears hearing need not be conducted for every pro
se
complaint. Wilson
v.
Barrientos, 926 F.2d480, 483 n.4 (5th Cir. 1991)2.
The District Judge has reviewed plaintiffs pleadings and has viewed the facts alleged by
plaintiff to determine if his claims present grounds for dismissal or should proceed to answer by
defendants.
THE LAW AND ANALYSIS
'A claim is frivolous ifit lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact, Bookerv. Koonce,2 F.3d l14, 115 (5th Cir.7993); see,
Denton v. Hernandez,504 U.S. 25, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 1733, I l8 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992).
2C7
Green v. McKaskle,788 F.2d I I 16, I 120 (5th Cir. 1986) ("Ofcourse, our discussion of Spears should not be interpreted
to mean that all or even most prisoner claims require or deserve aSpears hearing. A district court should be able to dismiss as
frivolous a significant number of prisoner suits on the complaint alone or the complaint together with the Ll/atson
questionnaire. ").
Plaintiff has not requested release from incarceration. Nevertheless, it appears a favorable
determination of his claims would imply the invalidity of his conviction or the length of his
sentence. Without analyzingthe specifics of plaintiff s claims to determine their legal
sufficiency, the Court notes plaintiff has informed the Court that he was unsuccessful on his state
habeas petition and that his federal habeas petition in this Court was denied February
8,2011,
and is presently on appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
PlaintifPs claims are barred by plaintiff
s present
inability to meet the favorable
terminationrequirement of Heckv. Humphrey,512tJ.S.477,114 S.Ct. 2364,2372,I29L.Ed.2d
383 (1ee4).
Plaintiff s pleading shows he has never successfully appealed his conviction or had it
cast
into doubt by a successful habeas action or otherwise. It is clear his conviction has not been
"reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal
authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a
writ of habeas corpus." Consequently, plaintiffs present claims lack an arguable basis in law and
are frivolous
until
the Heck conditions have been met. Johnson v. McElveen.
I0l F.3d
423.424
(5th Cir. 1996).
CONCLUSION
Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, sections 19154. and 1915((e)(2), as well as
Title 42, United States Code, section 1997e(c)(l),
TT
IS HEREBY ORDERED:
The referral of the instant cause to the United States Magistrate Judge is hereby
withdrawn.
Plaintiff s Civil Rights Claims
are DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS
WITH PREJUDICE
TO BEING ASSERTED AGAIN UNTIL THE HECK CONDITIONS ARE MET. Johnson v.
McElveen,101 F.3d 423,424 (5thCir. 1996).
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
All pending motions
are DENIED.
The dismissal of this cause counts as a "strike" under the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act.
Roe v. Hanshaw,149 F.3d I 176 (5th Cir. 1998); Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88
(5ft Cir. 1996). Plaintiff is warned that, upon accumulation of three "strikes" he will be barred
from proceeding in forma paupers in any civil proceeding or appeal unless his suit qualified
turder 28 U.S.C. 1915(g).
The Clerk will mail a copy of this Order to the plaintiff, and to any attorney of record by
first class mail. The Clerk will also mail
Box 13084, capitol station, Austin,
Tx
a copy
to TDCJ-Office of the General Counsel, P.O.
78711;the Inmate Trust Fund, p.o. Box 629,
Huntsville, Texas 77342-0629, fax: 936-4374793; andto the Pro Se Clerk at the U.S. District
Court for the Eastem District of Texas, Tyler Division.
It is SO ORDERED.
Signed this
the
1
,i
/r/
/ '
day of
October,20ll.
ROBIN SON
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?