Lynn v. Stephens, Director TDCJ-CID

Filing 19

FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE. The Court recommends that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), and 1915(e)(2)(B) and that his motion for summary judgment be denied. (see order) (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Paul D Stickney on 1/9/2014) (mcrd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION

SEAN CAREY LYNN, 1496095,
Plaintiff,
v.
WILLIAM STEPHENS, Director, TDCJ-CID,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:13-CV-4735-D

FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and an order of the District Court, this
case has been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge. The findings, conclusions and
recommendation of the Magistrate Judge follow:
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is a state prisoner currently incarcerated in the Allred Unit of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice - Correctional Institutions Division (TDCJ-CID). He filed this
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and the Court has granted
him leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Plaintiff files this suit against thirty-five defendants, including employees of the Allred
Unit, the Telford Unit, the Beto Unit and the Montford Unit of TDCJ-CID, the University of
Texas Medical Branch and Texas Tech Medical Branch. Process has not issued pending judicial
screening.
Plaintiff makes numerous claims against Defendants. He states Defendants have injected
with several “deadly diseases,” including HIV, Hepatitis C, syphilis and gonorhea. He states
Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation
of the United States Magistrate Judge

Page -1-

these diseases were hidden in the tuberculosis shots he received. He states Sgt. Summers fell in
love with his free-world girlfriend, so Summers had gang members beat him up. He claims Sgt.
Summers, Sgt. Ricks and inmate Marcus Jackson paid officers to put semen, rat poison, glass,
spit and urine in his food and drinks. He states Captain Gooden and Officer Rivas conspired
with inmate Michael Munoz to place a weapon to his head to cause him to dismiss a civil suit.
He claims Captain Gooden, Officer Rivas, Sgt. Ricks and Sgt. Summers conspired with Michael
Munoz to steal his family’s addresses and extort thousands of dollars from them. He claims
Defendants stole checks he was receiving in the mail, that they stole ten thousand dollars from
his inmate trust account and that they stole one hundred thousand dollars the Attorney General
was sending to him. He states Defendants put chemicals in his food that caused kidney damage
and paralysis. He claims Defendants switched his blood and urine samples to conceal his
medical problems and that Defendants stole his identity. He also filed a motion for summary
judgment on his claims.
DISCUSSION
The court permitted Plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis. His complaint is, thus,
subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which imposes a screening responsibility on the
district court. Section 1915A reads in pertinent part as follows:
The court shall review . . . as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a
civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or
officer or employee of a governmental entity [and] [o]n review, the court shall
identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the
complaint, if the complaint (1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant
who is immune from such relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and (b) (emphasis added). See also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A claim is
Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation
of the United States Magistrate Judge

Page -2-

factually frivolous when “the facts alleged are ‘fantastic or delusional scenarios’ or the legal
theory upon which a complaint relies is ‘indisputably meritless.’” Harris v. Hegmann, 198 F.3d
153, 156 (5th Cir. 1999).
Plaintiff’s complaint recites fantastic charges which are fanciful and delusional in nature.
Dismissal is warranted under these circumstances. See, e.g., Patterson v. U.S. Government, No.
3:08-CV-1730-K, 2008 WL 5061800 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 25, 2008) (dismissing complaint alleging
that plaintiff received messages through the television to return to her husband, that she was
being tracked by a remote control bracelet and that someone at a family crisis center threatened to
put her in a dungeon); Melton v. American Civil Liberties Union, No. 3:07-CV-856-M, 2007 WL
2263953 (N.D. Tex. Jul. 30, 2007) (dismissing complaint alleging ACLU and its attorneys,
acting as Russian agents, violated plaintiff’s civil rights by using the courts to attack the United
States Constitution and set up a Communist government); Daniel v. FBI, No. 3:03-CV-1281-N,
2003 WL 21436479 (N.D. Tex. Jun. 17, 2003), rec. adopted, 2003 WL 21555130 (N.D. Tex. Jul.
8, 2003) (dismissing complaint alleging that FBI stalked, harassed, and tried to poison plaintiff
because she ran as a write-in candidate for President of the United States). The Court
recommends that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed and that his motion for summary judgment
be denied.

Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation
of the United States Magistrate Judge

Page -3-

RECOMMENDATION
The Court recommends that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous. See
28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), and 1915(e)(2)(B) and that his motion for summary judgment be
denied.
Signed this 9th day of January, 2014.

_____________________________________
PAUL D. STICKNEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation
of the United States Magistrate Judge

Page -4-

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT
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 recommendation must file
specific written objections within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific
finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and
specify the place in the magistrate judge's report and recommendation where the disputed
determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the
briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file specific written objections will
bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the
magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except upon grounds of plain
error. See Douglass v. United Services Automobile Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996).

Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation
of the United States Magistrate Judge

Page -5-