Carson v. Hernandez et al
Filing
13
Order Accepting 9 Findings and Recommendations. The court certifies that any appeal of this action would not be taken in good faith. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 10/30/2018) (epm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
ARTHUR CARSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
SOFIA HERNANDEZ and
VOA/PRARIE CREEK VILLAGE APT.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 3:17-CV-1493-L
ORDER
The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Renée Harris Toliver, who entered the Findings,
Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) on July 26,
2018, recommending that the court dismiss with prejudice this action by pro se Plaintiff Arthur
Carson (“Plaintiff”) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted. The magistrate judge further recommended that Plaintiff not be allowed to amend
his pleadings because it appears from his Complaint and response to the Magistrate Judge’s
Questionnaire that he has pleaded his best case and allowing him to replead would be futile. Plaintiff
filed objections to the Report on August 7, 2018, and, on September 25, 2018, Plaintiff filed a
Request for Redaction of His Home Address from Pacer’s Website (Doc. 12), requesting that his
home address not be displayed on “Pacer’s website” because this disclosure invaded his privacy and
subjected him and the occupants of his home to imminent harm and harassment.
After carefully reviewing the pleadings, file, record in this case, and Report, and having
conducted a de novo review of that portion of the Report to which objection was made, the court
determines that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, accepts them as
Order – Page 1
those of the court, overrules Plaintiff’s objections, and dismisses with prejudice this action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Plaintiff did not object to the magistrate judge’s
recommendation that he not be allowed to amend his pleadings, so any objection in this regard is
waived, such that the court will not allow him to amend his pleadings. The court also denies
Plaintiff’s Request for Redaction of His Home Address from Pacer’s Website (Doc. 12). All of the
documents filed in this case by Plaintiff include his address and have been publicly available during
the past several months that this action has been pending, and Plaintiff’s conclusory assertions
regarding privacy concerns and harm are unsubstantiated.
The court prospectively certifies that any appeal of this action would not be taken in good
faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3). In support of this certification, the court
incorporates by reference the Report. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 and n.21 (5th Cir.
1997). The court concludes that any appeal of this action would present no legal point of arguable
merit and would, therefore, be frivolous. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). In the
event of an appeal, Plaintiff may challenge this certification by filing a separate motion to proceed
in forma pauperis on appeal with the clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202; Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5).
It is so ordered this 30th day of October, 2018.
_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge
Order – Page 2
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?