Mujica v. Board of Pardons and Paroles et al

Filing 8

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS on case: Plaintiffs complaint should be summarily dismissed. Case is no longer referred to Magistrate Judge. (see order) (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Jeff Kaplan on 8/11/2009) (klm)

IN THE UNITED STATESDISTRICTCOURT DISTRICTOF TEXAS NORTHERN D A L L A S DIVISION I S M A E L MUJICA Plaintiff, VS. BOARD OF PARDONSAND P A R O L E SET AL. .
Defendants.

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

NO.3-09-CV-1191-L

FINDINGS AND RE,COMMENDATION OF THE U N I T E D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE This case has been referred to the United States magistrate judge for initial screening pursuantto 28 U.S.C. $ 636(b) and a standingorder of referencefrom the district court. The findings and recommendationof the magistratejudge are as follow: I. T h i s is a pro se civil rights action broughtby IsmaelMujica, a Texas prisoner,againsthis former attorneys,the Texas Board of Pardonsand Paroles,and an unnamedparty identified only as a " D a l l a s County Director." On June24,2009,plaintiff tendered complaintto the district clerk and the f i l e d an applicationto proceedinformapauperis. Because informationprovidedby plaintiff in to his pauper'saffidavit indicatesthat he lacks the funds necessary prosecutethis action, the court granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and allowed the complaint to be filed. Written

interrogatoriesthen were sentto plaintiff in order to obtain additional information about the factual on the b a s i sof his suit. Plaintiff answered intenogatories July 29,2009. The court now determines t h a t this caseshouldbe summarilydismissed.

il. to Although his pleadingsaredifficult to decipher,plaintiff appears allegethat he was falsely arrested,detained,and convicted on multiple statedrug charges.The majority of his claims involve the adequacyof his legal representationat trial and on appeal. Specifically, plaintiff contendsthat his trial counsel, Russ Hendrichs and Alfonso Campo, failed to move for a judgment of acquittal based on a defective indictment, did not file a motion to suppressillegally seized evidence, and conspiredwith the prosecutorto obtain his conviction. Plaintiff also criticizes his appellatelawyer, for R o b e r tUdashen, not raisingcertainclaimson directappealandfor conspiringwith trial counsel. F i n a l l y , plaintiff allegesthat the Texas Board of Pardonsand Parolesand the "Dallas County in to rights and participated a conspiracy convict him. By this D i r e c t o r " violated his constitutional suit, plaintiff seeksunspecified compensatoryand punitive damages,declaratory and injunctive r e l i e f , a new trial, and a full pardon. A. A district court may summarily dismiss a complaint filed informa paupens if it concludes t h a t the action:

(l) (2) (3)

i s frivolous or malicious: fails to statea claim on which relief may be granted; or who is immune from seeksmonetaryrelief againsta defendant such relief.

2 8 U.S.C. $ 1915(e)(2XB). In order to statea claim on which relief may be granted,the plaintiff must plead "enough facts to statea claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. L.8d.2d929(2007). "Factual allegations 5.Ct.1955,1974,167 v . Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,570,127 level." Id., 127 S.Ct.at 1965. While m u s t be enoughto raisea right to relief abovethe speculative

a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations,the plaintiff must allege more than labels and conclusions. Id. at 1964-65. The court must acceptall well-pleaded facts as true and view the Litig.,495 a l l e g a t i o n sin the light most favorableto the plaintiff. SeeIn re Katrina Canal Breaches Cas. F . 3 d 191,205 (5th Cir.2007),cert. deniedsub nom.,XavierUniv. of Louisianav. Travelers P r o p e r t yCo. of America,l2S S.Ct. 1230(2008). B. The court initially observesthat plaintiff cannot suethe TexasBoard of Pardonsand Paroles for money damages.As a stateagency,the Board "is cloakedwith Eleventh Amendment immunity Wallerv.Collier,297Fed.Appx.326,327,2008WL4623354 fromsectionlgS3damagesclaims." a t * 1 (5th Cir. Oct. 20,2008),citing McGrew v. TexasBd. of Pardons& Paroles,4T F .3d. 158, 161 ( 5 t h Cir. 1995). Nor canplaintiff maintaina federalcivil rightsactionagainsthis former attorneys-Russ Hendrichs, Alfonso Campo, and Robert Udashen. Private attorneys,even those appointedby the court to representindigent criminal defendants,are not "stateactors" and cannot be suedunder at WL 2215950 *3 (N.D. Knize,No.3-06-CV-0729-K,2006 4 2 U.S.C. $ 1983. SeeFeathersonv. T e x . Aug. 2,2006),citing Mills v. Criminal Dist.Ct. No.3,837 F.2d677, 679 (5th Cir. 1988).The o n l y other defendantnamedby plaintiff in his complaint,the "Dallas County Director," cannotbe j o i n e d as apartyto this actionwithout being identified. SeeVollmerv. Bowles,No. 3-96-CV-0081are D , 1 9 9 7 WL 102476 at*2 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 28,1997) (citing cases)(unnameddefendants not proper parties to an action under a federal statute). C. In addition, plaintiffs claims are subject to dismissal under the rule in Heck v. Humphrey, 5 1 2 U.S. 477, 114S.Ct.2364,129L.Ed.zd383 (1994). Heckholdslhata partymay not maintain unlessa statecourt or federal a civil rights actionbasedon the legalityof a prior criminal proceeding

habeascourt has determinedthat the terms of confinementare in fact invalid. Heck,114 S.Ct. at 2 3 7 2 . The critical inquiry is whethera judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the civil action would "necessarilyimply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence.".Id If so, the claim is barredunless t h e conviction has beenreversedor beendeclaredinvalid. Id.; Hainze v. Richards,207 F.3d795, 7 9 8 (5th Cir.),cert. denied,l2l S.Ct.384 (2000). The gravamenof plaintiffs complaint is that his convictions were the result of ineffective of assistance counseland a conspiracyinvolving his lawyers,the prosecutor,the Texasparole board, imply the invalidity ofplaintiffs criminal a n dthe "DallasCountyDirector." Suchclaimsnecessarily or c o n v i c t i o n s ,which have never beenreversed beendeclaredinvalid. (SeeMag. J. Interrog.#8). e.g.Berry C o n s e q u e n t l y , p l a i n t i f f c a n n o t m a i n t a i n a c i v i l r i g h t s a c t i o n u n d e r 4 2 U . S$C . . 1983.See, WL v . Grett,No.3-08-CV-1052-M,2008 3382572at*3(l{.D. Tex.Aug.4,2008)(civilrightsclaim of basedon ineffective assistance counsel does not accrueuntil state court or federal habeascourt i n v a l i d a t e sunderlyingcriminal conviction);Castellanov. Fragozo,352 F.3d 939, 959-60(5th Cir. 2 0 0 3 ) , cert. denied, 125 S.Ct. 3 | (2004) (same as to civil rights claim basedon manufactured e v i d e n c eand perjuredtestimony);Gilkey v. Graves,No. 3-03-CV-0497-G,2003WL 21653858at * 1-2 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 9,2003) (sameasto claims against judge and othersfor conspiringto violate p l a i n t i f f s civil rights before and during criminal trial).1 RECOMMENDATION pursuantto 28 U.S.C. $ l9l5(e)(2). P l a i n t i f f s complaint shouldbe summarilydismissed

i To the extent plaintiffseeks releasefrom custody, his complaint must be construed as an application for writ of habeas corpusunder28 U.S .C.52254. Jacl$on v. Torres,720F.2d877,879 (5th Cir. 1983). However,unlessand until relief. SeeMaldonado v. Anderson,No. p l a i n t i f f e x h a u s t shis availablestateremedies, may not seekfederalhabeas he 4 - 0 3 - C V - 0 0 8 9 - Y , 2 0 0 3 WL21212620 at*2 (N.D. Tex. May 13,2003),

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all parties in the manner provided by law, Any party who objects to any part of this report and recommendationmust file See28U.S.C.$ 636(bXl); s p e c i f r c w r i t t e n o b j e c t i o n s w i t h il0daysafterbeingservedwithacopy. n F B o . R. Cry. P. 72(b). In order to be specific,an objection must identi$ the specific finding or recommendationto which objection is made,statethe basisfor the objection, and speciff the place in the magistratejudge's report and recommendationwherethe disputeddeterminationis found. An objection that merely incorporatesby referenceor refers to the briefing before the magistratejudge is not specihc. Failure to frle specific written objectionswill bar the aggrievedparty from appealing judge that are acceptedor adoptedbythe the factual findings and legal conclusionsofthe magistrate AutomobileAss'n, d i s t r i c t court,exceptupongroundsof plain error. SeeDouglassv. UnitedServices 7 9 F.3d 1415,l4l7 (5th Cir. 1996).

11,2009. D A T E D : August

LA}i JUDGH S T A T E S }VIAGISTR:-ATE