Robinson v. Snipes et al

Filing 8

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Plaintiff's complaint should be summarily dismissed. (see order for specifics) (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Jeff Kaplan on 11/2/09) (tln)

IN THE UNITED STATESDISTRICTCOURT NORTHERN DISTRICTOF TEXAS D A L L A S DIVISION GREGORY ALLEN ROBINSON. JR. Plaintiff, VS. J U D G EMICHAEL SNIPES. AL. ET
Defendants.

N O . 3-09-CV-1863-K

F I N D I N G S AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE This casehas been referred to the United Statesmagistratejudge for pretrial management from the district court. The findings orderof reference p u r s u a n t 28 U.S.C. $ 636(b)anda standing to and recommendationof the magistratejudge are as follow: I. T h i s is a pro se civil rights action broughtby GregoryAllen Robinson,Jr., a former Texas and his former p r i s o n e r ,againsta statedistrict judge, two unknown Dallas County prosecutors,r a 30, a t t o r n e y .On September 2009,plaintifftendered form civil rights complaintto the district clerk the and filed an application to proceedinforma pauperis. Because information provided by plaintiff to in his pauper'saffidavit indicatesthat he lacks the funds necessary prosecutethis case,the court granted leave to proceed informa pauperis and allowed the complaint to be filed. The court then sent written interrogatories to plaintiff in order to obtain additional information about the factual

I Plaintiff named the "District Attorney's Office" as a defendantin his original pro se complaint. Becausethe Blaney v. "District Attorney's Office" is not a legal entity with jural authority, it cannot be sued in federal court. ,See M e y e r s ,No.3-08-CV-1869-P,2009WL 400092at *2 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 17,2009). When this pleadingdefectwas for b r o u g h t to plaintiffs attention,he identifiedtwo unknown "female D.A.'s" as the personsresponsible violating his c i v i l rights. (SeeMag J. Interrog.#8).

basisof his suit. Plaintiff answered interrogatories October26, 2009. The court now the on dismissed. determines this caseshouldbe summarilv that
II. Although his complaint and interrogatoryanswersare difficult to decipher,plaintiff appears to allege that he was wrongfully prosecuted and convicted of theft in 2008. Now that he has dischargedhis one-yearjail sentence,plaintiff seeksto hold the judge, prosecutors,and defense that for c o u n s e lresponsible his unlawful convictionandimprisonment.Specifically,plaintiff alleges Judge Michael Snipes failed to properly apply the law, refused to dismiss the theft charge, and c o e r c e dplaintiff to pleadguilty despitea lack of evidence.(SeeMag. J. Interrog.#2 & 5). Plaintiff of two unnamedDallas County prosecutors engagingin misconduct,including filing false accuses againsthim. (SeePlf. Compl. at 3, !f IV(B); Mag.J. Interrog.#8). Finally, plaintiff contends charges t h a t his attorney,T. Price Stone,failed to providehim with a copy ofthe police report,refusedto file a motion to dismissthe indictment, did not advise family membersof court dates,and generally of renderedineffective assistance counsel. (SeeMag. J. Interrog. #4). By this suit, plaintiff seeks and an order expungingthe theft conviction from his record. m o n e y damages A. A district court may summarilydismissa complaintfiled informa pauperis 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 seeksmonetaryrelief againsta defendantwho is immune from s u c hrelief.

plaintiff must plead 28 U.S.C. $ 1915(e)(2)(B).To statea claim upon which relief may be granted, "enough facts to statea claim to relief that is plausible on its face,"Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 5 5 0 U.S. 544,570,127S.Ct. 1955,1974,167 L.Ed.2d929(2007),andmustpleadthosefactswith level." ld.,127 S.Ct.at 1965. "A e n o u g hspecificity "to raisea right to relief abovethe speculative claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonableinferencethat the defendantis liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, _ u.s. _, neednot contain 129s.ct. 1937,1949,173L.Ed.2d868 (2009). While a complainr

the d e t a i l e dfactual allegations, plaintiff must allegemore than labelsand conclusions. Twombly, factsastrue and view the allegations 1 2 7 S.Ct. at 1964-65.The court must acceptall well-pleaded i n the light most favorableto the plaintiff. SeeIn re Katrina Canal BreachesLitig.,495 F.3d l9l, 205 (5th Cir . 2007),cert. deniedsub nom., Xavier Univ. of Louisiana v. TravelersCas.Property Co. o f America, 128 S.Ct. 1230(2008). B. Plaintiffs claims are subjectto summarydismissalfor at leasttwo reasons.First, judges and prosecutors have absoluteimmunity for actions taken within the scopeof their jurisdiction. See Imbler U.S.349, 356,98S.Ct.1099,I 104,55 L.Ed.2d331 (1978)(judges); S t u m pv, Sparkman,435 Public 424 U.S. 409, 427,96 S.Ct. 984, 993,47 L.Ed,2d 128 (1976)(prosecutors). v . Pachtman, and private attorneysare not "stateactors"and cannotbe suedunder 42 U.S.C. $ 1983. defenders s e e polk County v. Dodson,454 U.S. 312, 324-25,102 S.Ct. 445, 453, 70 L.Ed.zd 509 (1981) ( h o l d i n g that "a public defenderdoesnot act under color of statelaw when performing a lawyer's Feathersonv. Knize,No. in t r a d i t i o n a lfunctionsas counselto a defendant a criminal proceeding"); Tex. Aug. 2,2006), citing Mills v. Criminal Dist. 3 - 0 6 - C V - 0 7 2 9 - K , 2 0 0 6WL 2215950at *3 (I.tr.D.

evencourt-appointed Court No. 3,837 F.2d677,679(sthcir. 1988)(holdingthat "privateattorneys, a t t o r n e y s , not official stateactors,and generallyare not subjectto suit under section 1983"). are and counsel,his claimsarebarred E v e n if plaintiff could suethejudge, prosecutors, defense b y the rule in Heck v. Humphrey,512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). Heck holds that a party may not maintain a civil rights action based on the legality of a prior criminal proceedingunlessa statecourt or federalhabeas court hasdeterminedthat the terms of confinement a r e in fact invalid. Heck,l l4 S.Ct. at2372. The critical inquiry is whethera judgment in favor of imply the invalidity ofhis convictionor sentence." t h e plaintiff in the civil actionwould "necessarily or I d . lf so,the claim is barredunlessthe convictionhasbeenreversed beendeclaredinvalid. Id.; H a i n z ev. Richards,207F.3d795,798 (5th Cir.), cert.denied,l2l S.Ct.384 (2000). The gravamenof plaintiffs complaint is that the judge failed to properly apply the law, that the prosecutorsfiled false chargesagainsthim, and that his attorneyrenderedineffective assistance o f counsel--allof which resultedin his pleadingguilty to a crime he did not commit. Suchclaims n e c e s s a r i l yimply the invalidity of plaintiffs theft conviction, which has never been reversedor precluded from maintaininga civil declared invalid. (SeeMag.J. Interrog.#7). Plaintiff is therefore v. r i g h t sactionunder42 U.S.C. $ 1983, See,e.g.Castellano Fragozo,352F.3d939,959-60(5th and evidence C i r . 2003),cert. denied,l25 S.Ct.3l (2004)(civil rightsclaim basedon manufactured perjured testimony doesnot accrueuntil statecourt dismissesunderlying criminal action); Ferguson WL I 857130at *2 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 18,2004),rec. v . City of Rowlett,No. 3-04-CV-1429-P,2004 conspired (N.D. Tex. Aug. 31,2004) (claim that police and prosecutor a d o p t e d , 2 0 0 4 W L 1944082 to manufacturemisleading videotapeand presentfalse evidenceto jury was barredby Heck); Gilkey as WL at*1-2 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 9,2003) (same to v . Graves,No.3-03-CV-0497-G,2003 21653858

judge and othersfor conspiring violateplaintiffs civil rights beforeand during claimsagainst to c r i m i n a ltrial).2
RECOMMENDATION pursuantto 28 U.S.C. $ 1915(eX2). P l a i n t i f f s complaint shouldbe summarilydismissed A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all parties in the manner provided by law. Any parfy who objects to any part of this report and recommendationmust file copy.See28 U.S.C.$ 636(b)(l); l0daysafterbeingservedwitha specificwrittenobjectionswithin F e o . R. Clv. 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 party from appealing will bar the aggrieved i s not specific. Failureto file specificwritten objections judge that are acceptedor adoptedby the the factual findings and legal conclusionsof the magistrate AutomobileAss'n, d i s t r i c t court,exceptupongroundsofplain en or. SeeDouglassv. UnitedServices 7 9 F.3d 1415,l4l7 (SthCir. 1996). D A T E D : November 2. 2009.

S T A T E S ]\,IAGISTRATE JUDGE

2 The court notes that a prior lawsuit brought by plaintiffagainst two of the defendantsnamedherein, JudgeMichael on S n i p e sand T. Price Stone,also was dismissed Heck grounds. SeeRobinsonv. Stone,No, 3-09-CV-0220-8,2009 W L 790130CN.D.Tex. Mar.25,2009).