Peters v. Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Filing
6
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL -- ORDERED that the civil rights complaint filed by plaintiff be Dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. (Ordered by Judge Mary Lou Robinson on 12/12/2012) (awc)
IN THE LINITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AMARILLO DIVISION
REGINALD DALE PETERS, PRO
TDCJ-CID No. 1361704.
SE,
$
$
$
Plaintifl
$
$
$
2:12-CY-0246
$
TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS,
$
$
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiff REGINALD DALE PETERS, acting pro
se and
while
a prisoner confined
in the
Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, has filed a document
which can be construed either as a Petition for Writ of Mandamus or as a suit pursuant to
Title 42, United States Code, section 1983 complaining against the above-referenced defendant
and has been granted permission to proceed in accord with Title 28, United States Code, section
1915.
Plaintiff claims the TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS has denied him his
constitutional rights of Due Process, Equal Protection of the Law, and Access to Courts by
denying his writ of mandamus without written order. It appears the relief plaintiff wants is that
the TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS be required to identifu why it dismissed
original writ of mandamus and return plaintiffls original initial writ of habeas corpus.
plaintiff
s
Plaintiff
s specific request for relief is that this Court not hold him to the same standards of an
attorney.
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. Higgs , 892
F
of
.2d 438, 440 (5th Cir. I 990), 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. $ 1915A,; 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 the facts alleged by plaintiff to determine if his claim
presents grounds for dismissal or should proceed to answer by defendant.
THE LAW AND ANALYSIS
The only relief plaintiff references in his submission to the Court is mandamus.
Federal courts are without power to issue writs of mandamus directing state courts or
their judicial officers in the performance of their duties where mandamus is the only relief
sought. Lamarv, llSthJudicialDistrictCourtofTexas,440F.2d3S3 (5thCir. 1971).
'A claim is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact, Booker v, Koonce,2
see,Dentonv. Hernandez,504U.S.25, ll2 S.Ct. 1728, 1733, ll8L.Ed.2d 340(1992).
F
.3d
ll4, 1 l5 (5th Cir. 1993);
zCf, Green v. McKaskle,788 F.2d 1116, ll20 (5th
Cir. I 986) ("Of course, 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 Watson
questionnaire. ").
"[L]itigants may not obtain review of state court actions by filing complaints about those
actions in lower federal courts case in the form of civil rights suits." Hale v. Harney, Tg6
F
.2d
688, 691 (5th Cir. 1986). Moteover, the relief plaintiff seeks is in the nature of mandamus relief.
Federal courts have no power to direct state judicial officials in the performance of their
functions.
See Moye v.
Clerk, Dekalb County Superior Court,474F.2d t275,1276 (5th Cir.
1973). Consequently, this Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the relief requested. See, Santee
v.
Quinlan,l l5 F.3d 355, 356 (5th Cir. 1997).
Further, plaintiff has plead his state mandamus action was denied by THE TEXAS
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS. If so, there is no longer an action pending before that court
for it to act upon, even ifso ordered.
Plaintiffs allegations against the defendant fail to state a claim on which relief can be
granted. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,127 S.Ct. 1955, 1966 n.5,167 L.Ed.2d
92e (2007).
CONCLUSION
Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, sections 1915,A' and 1915(e)(2), as well as
Title 42, United States Code, section 1997e(c)(1),
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Civil Rights Complaint filed pursuant to Title 42,
United States Code, section 1983, by plaintiff REGINALD DALE PETERS be DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM ON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE
GRANTED.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
A copy of this Order shall be mailed to plaintiff and to any attorney of record by first
class
mail. The Clerk shall
also mail copies of this Order of Dismissal to TDCJ-Office of the
General Counsel, P.O. Box 13084, Austin,
TX
78711; and to the Pro Se Clerk at the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Tvler Division.
It is SO ORDERED.
7,
Signed this
the
(/
Z
United States
day of December, 2012.
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?