Hill v. State of Texas et al
Filing
17
Memorandum Opinion and Order...all claims and causes of action asserted by plaintiff against defendants in the action are dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 USC 1915A(b) (Ordered by Judge John McBryde on 9/18/2013) (wrb)
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
1FM:\f\1'~%0,
FILED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRIC COUR
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEX
SEP I 8 20l3
..,-,.,'
FORT WORTH DIVISION
. :-':'·;: :1';}?
~(CLERK,_U-.S-.D-1-S-TRI_C_T_COURT
.....
~
DWIGHT RAY HILL,
Plaintiff,
~~fi'.i,~~.'.: " •· · Deputy
§
§
vs.
§
§
STATE OF TEXAS AND PARKER
COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT,
§
Defendants.
NO. 4:13-CV-652-A
§
§
§
MEMORANDUM OPINION
and
ORDER
Now before the court for consideration are (1) an amended
civil rights complaint filed in the above action by plaintiff,
Dwight Ray Hill, naming as defendants State of Texas ("State")
and Parker County Sheriff Department ("Sheriff's Department"),
and (2) a motion for permanent injunction. 1
Because Sheriff's
Department is not an entity capable of being sued, the court is
substituting Parker County ("County") for Sheriff's Department as
a proper defendant.
Having considered plaintiff's amended
complaint and applicable legal authorities, the court concludes
that the action should be dismissed.
Further, having considered
plaintiff's motion for permanent injunction, the court concludes
1
Plaintiff filed his original complaint in the Western District of Texas on July 25, 2013.
Plaintiff subsequently filed an amended complaint, titled "Violation of Civil Rights Amended 7-252013," on July 30, 2013, which the comt is construing as an amended complaint. The action was then
transferred to this court from the Western District of Texas on August 5, 2013.
J
that the motion should be denied.
I.
The Complaint
In his amended complaint, plaintiff makes the following
allegations:
(1) he is being illegally held on a false
retaliation charge and has been placed in a mental institution
without evaluation by psychologists or psychiatrists;
(2) Sheriff
Larry Fowler instructed a jailer to inform prisoners that
"plaintiff was a pedafile [sic]
in order to have plaintiff beat
to death to shut him up about the use of cybernetics technology
by law enforcement;"
(3) Parker County computer operators
informed people through plaintiff's Facebook page that plaintiff
is a pedofile and Sheriff's Department displayed false charges
against plaintiff on a website,
plaintiff's name; " 2
(
4)
"slandering and libeling
"Parker County mind control computer
operators" attempted to place child pornography on plaintiff's
computer and then tried to assassinate plaintiff after he
discovered it;
(5)Parker County deputies illegally searched and
seized plaintiff's vehicle and computer;
2
(6) plaintiff has been
The couti notes that although plaintiff uses the terms "slandering" and "libeling," it does not
appear from plaintiffs amended complaint, that plaintiff is actually asserting claims of slander or libel
separate from his civil rights claim. Rather, plaintiff is apparently alleging that the actions by Parker
County computer operators, which plaintiff characterizes as "slandering" and "libeling," are violations of
his civil rights.
2
"electronically harrassed [sic] and tortured" with mind control
chips;
(7) Judge Graham Quisenberry in Parker County did not
allow plaintiff to attend competency hearings, appointed
plaintiff •a worthless attorney" even though "plaintiff had over
four thousand dollars in the bank," refused to expunge false
charges, paid an expert to testify against plaintiff, and has
refused to grant various motions filed by plaintiff; and (8)
plaintiff's lawsuit in state court for false arrest has not been
allowed to go to trial.
Am. Compl. at 1-2.
Plaintiff is seeking
two million dollars in damages.
II.
Evaluating the Complaint Under 28 U.S.C.
§
1915A
As a prisoner seeking redress from government officials,
plaintiff's complaint is subject to preliminary screening under
28 U.S.C.
§
1915A, regardless of whether he is proceeding in
forma pauperis.
Cir. 1998).
See Martin v. Scott, 156 F.3d 578, 579-80 (5th
Section 1915A(b) (1) provides for sua sponte
dismissal if the court finds that the complaint is either
frivolous or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, and
§
1915A(b) (2) provides for sua sponte dismissal if
the complaint seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief.
A claim is frivolous if it "lacks an
arguable basis in either fact or law."
3
Neitzke v. Williams, 490
U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
A complaint fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted when, assuming that all the
allegations in the complaint are true even if doubtful in fact,
such allegations fail to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level.
(2007)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Although pro se complaints and arguments must be liberally
construed, Moore v. McDonald, 30 F.3d 616, 620 (5th Cir. 1994),
"[a] plaintiff may not . . . plead merely conclusory allegations
to successfully state a section 1983 claim, but must instead set
forth specific facts which, if proven, would warrant the relief
sought."
Arnaud v. Odom, 870 F.2d 304, 307
(5th Cir. 1989).
Having now considered plaintiff's claims and causes of
action against defendants, the court concludes that they should
be dismissed under the provisions of 28
u.s.c.
§
1915A.
III.
Analysis
A.
Claims against State
Plaintiff's claims against State are barred by sovereign
immunity.
The Eleventh Amendment bars claims filed against a
state without the state's consent.
Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp.
v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984); Lewis v. Univ. of Texas
Med. Branch at Galveston, 665 F.3d 625, 630 (5th Cir. 2011).
4
As
there is no allegation that State has in any manner waived its
right to sovereign immunity, plaintiff's claims against State are
barred and must be dismissed.
B.
Claims against County
Plaintiff's claims against County must be dismissed because
plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to state a claim
for municipal liability under
§
1983. 3
It is well-settled that
local government entities such as County cannot be held liable
for the acts of their employees solely on a theory of respondeat
superior.
Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 692
(1978).
Liability may be imposed against a local government entity
under
§
1983 only "if the governmental body itself subjects a
person to a deprivation of rights or causes a person to be
subjected to such deprivation."
131 s. ct. 1350, 1359 (2011)
Connick v. Thompson, _U.S.
(quoting Monell, 436 U.S. at 692)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
liable under
§
To hold City or County
1983 requires plaintiff to "initially allege that
an official policy or custom was a cause in fact of the
3
The comi notes that plaintiffs amended compliant does not specifically state that plaintiff
seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. However, as plaintiffs amended complaint is titled "Violation of
Civil Rights Amended 7-25-2013" and the defendants named in the case are state actors, plaintiff is
presumably seeking relief under§ 1983. Further, the court can discern no basis other than§ 1983 for
plaintiffs civil rights claims.
5
deprivation of rights inflicted.•
Spiller v. City of Texas City,
Police Dept., 130 F.3d 162, 167 (5th cir. 1997)
quotation marks and citation omitted) .
(internal
"Official municipal
policy includes the decisions of a government's lawmakers, the
acts of its policymaking officials, and practices so persistent
and widespread as to practically have the force of law.•
Connick,
131 S. Ct. at 1359.
defendants pursuant to
§
Liability against local government
1983 requires proof of a policymaker, an
official policy, and a violation of constitutional rights whose
"moving force• is the policy or custom.
Piotrowski v. City of
Houston, 237 F.3d 567, 578 (5th Cir. 2001).
state a claim under
§
Additionally, to
1983 requires plaintiff to allege a
violation of a constitutional right.
Bass v. Parkwood Hosp., 180
F.3d 234, 241 (5th Cir. 1999).
First, many of plaintiff's claims against County are
insufficient to allege a violation of a constitutional right.
Specifically, plaintiff has failed to state a claim for a
violation of any constitutional right in his allegations that
Parker County computer operators and Sheriff's Department
slandered and libeled plaintiff's name; "Parker County mind
control computer operators• attempted to place child pornography
on his computer and then tried to assassinate plaintiff; Judge
Quisenberry refused to expunge false charges, denied plaintiff's
6
motions, paid an expert to testify against plaintiff, and did not
allow plaintiff to attend competency hearings; and plaintiff's
lawsuit in state court has yet to go to trial.
Therefore, these
claims must fail.
Further, to the extent, if any, that plaintiff has alleged
violations of his constitutional rights in his claims that he is
being wrongfully incarcerated, Sheriff's Department illegally
searched and seized his vehicle and computer, Judge Quisenberry
denied him effective counsel, Sheriff Fowler incited other
prisoners to harm him, and plaintiff has been subjected to
torture with "mind control chips,• these claims also fail because
plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to state a claim for
municipal liability against County.
Nothing in the amended
complaint alleges that an official policy or custom was a cause
in fact of any deprivation of rights, nor has plaintiff
identified any responsible policymaking officials.
Stated
differently, the amended complaint fails to allege the existence
of any policymaker or official policy of County, nor does it
contain specific facts showing the alleged policy was the moving
force behind any constitutional violation.
Therefore, plaintiff
has failed to state a claim for municipal liability against
County.
7
* * * * * *
Having now considered plaintiff's claims and causes of
action against defendants, the court concludes that they should
be dismissed under the provisions of 28 u.s.c. § 1915A.
IV.
Motion for Permanent Injunction
On August 19, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion for permanent
injunction in which plaintiff requests an order enjoining
Sheriff's Department and "any other agency" from "electronically
harassing and torturing plaintiff using Cybernetics Technology or
Telsa Wave Technology."
Mot. at 1.
However, plaintiff's motion
appears frivolous and provides no basis for entitlement to
relief; plaintiff's motion is denied.
v.
Order
Therefore,
The court ORDERS that all claims and causes of action
asserted by plaintiff against defendants in the above-captioned
action be, and are hereby, dismissed with prejudice pursuant to
8
the authority of 28
SIGNED
u.s.c.
§
September~'
1915A(b).
2013.
9
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?