Goosby v. Robertson et al
Filing
9
Memorandum Opinion and Order. It is therefore ORDERED that the motion for leave to file an amended complaint, ECF No.8, is GRANTED to the extent the proposed amended complaint attached thereto has been reviewed and screened along with the complaint. It is further ORDERED that all claims in this case are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii). (Ordered by Judge Reed C O'Connor on 4/22/2014) (trt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
WICHITA FALLS DIVISION
JONATHAN SHAWN GOOSBY.
(TDCJ No. 1307836)
V.
LINDA ROBERTSON, et al.
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 7:13-CV-123-O
OPINION and ORDER OF DISMISSAL UNDER 28 U.S.C. §§
1915A(B) and UNDER 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)
This case is before the Court for review of pro-se inmate and plaintiff Jonathan Shawn
Goosby’s case under the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B). Goosby,
an inmate at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice’s Polunsky Unit, filed a form civil-rights
complaint seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 Goosby names as defendants several persons
associated with the North Texas State Hospital (NTSH), including Linda Robertson, caseworker;
Curtistene Dickerson, caseworker; Kirby Turner, M.D., assessing clinician; Amanda Robertson, social
worker; and Camila Anita Losoya, staff member. Complaint, ECF No. 3, at 1,3. Goosby complains
of events that took place while he was housed in the NTSH in 2004-2005 pending a competency
determination. Id. at 5 § V. Goosby alleges that defendant Turner failed to provide him adequate
medical care; that defendant Losoya subjected him to sexual exploitation; and that the remaining
defendants, even though notified of the alleged sexual exploitation, failed to report the allegations
or assist Goosby. Id. at 3 § IV(B). Goosby has also filed a motion for leave to file an amended
complaint, which will be granted to the extent the Court also considers the additional allegations in
the “proposed amended complaint” attached to the motion. Goosby seeks only compensatory
1
“Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United
States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured
by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper
proceeding for redress.” 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West 2012).
monetary damages, including “5 million dollars” each from defendants Turner and Losoya, and “2
million dollars” each from the other defendants. Id. at 4 § VI.
A complaint filed in forma pauperis that lacks an arguable basis in law should be dismissed
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.2 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a district court retains broad discretion
in determining at any time whether an in-forma-pauperis claim should be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 1915(e)(2) (West 2006); see Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996).
Furthermore, as a part of the PLRA, Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires the Court
to review a complaint from a prisoner seeking relief from a governmental entity or governmental
officer or employee as soon as possible after docketing. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A(a)(West 2006).
Consistent with § 1915A is prior case law recognizing that a district court is not required to await
a responsive pleading to conduct its § 1915 inquiry. See Schultea v. Wood, 47 F.3d 1427, 1434 (5th
Cir. 1995). Rather, § 1915 gives judges the power to “dismiss a claim based on an indisputably
meritless legal theory.” Id. (citing Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327.) After review of the complaint under
these standards, the Court concludes that Goosby’s claims must be dismissed.
After review and screening of the complaint and supporting exhibits, all of Goosby’s claims
must be dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations. The Supreme Court has held that all § 1983
actions are governed by the statute of limitations for personal-injury actions for the state of suit. See
Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 273-76 (1985) (holding that state statute of limitations period for
personal-injury actions applies to all claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983). In Texas, the applicable
limitations period is two years. See Moore v. McDonald, 30 F.3d 616, 620 (5th Cir. 1994)(noting
2
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989). Section 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) requires dismissal not only when
an allegation of poverty is untrue or the action is frivolous or malicious, but also when “the action . . . fails to state a
claim on which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.”
28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e)(2)(A) and (B) (West 2006).
-2-
that district courts in Texas must use Texas's general two-year, personal-injury limitations period);
see Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 16.003(a)(West Supp. 2013) (Texas’s two-year, personal-injury
limitations statute). A district court may dismiss claims sua sponte under § 1915 where it is clear
from a review of the complaint that the alleged claims are barred by the applicable statute of
limitations. See Harris v. Hegmann, 198 F.3d 153, 156 (5th Cir. 1999); see also Moore, 30 F.3d
at 620 (citing Gartrell V. Gaylor, 981 F.2d 254, 256 (5th Cir.1993)).
Accrual of a claim under § 1983 is determined by federal law, under which a claim generally
accrues when a plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury giving rise to the cause of action.
See Harris,198 F.3d at 157 (citing Jackson v. Johnson, 950 F.2d 263, 265 (5th Cir. 1992) and
Burrell v. Newsome, 883 F.2d 416, 418 (5th Cir. 1989)). Plaintiff recites allegations arising from
the time period in 2004 through 2005 when he was housed in the NTSH. He acknowledges arrival
there in December 22, 2004, and all of his allegations involve events that allegedly took place
between that date and March 2005, when he was deemed restored to competency. Complaint,
attachment pages, ECF No. 3, at 10-15; Exhibit, ECF 3-1, at 18. Goosby acknowledges that he signed
a release in December 2012 and paid for copies of his records from the NTSH, which he has attached
as exhibits to his complaint. Exhibits, ECF 3-1, at 37. Although December 27, 2012 is the date
Goosby purchased the records, the records are for medical, clinical, and assessment reports generated
from 2004-2005, while Goosby was housed in the NTSH. Exhibits 3-1, at 39-91. In the “proposed
amended complaint” pages, Goosby adds additional causes of action, but he does not list any dates
other than as listed in the complaint. Furthermore, staff telephone contact with the Texas Department
of Criminal Justice, Offender Information Office, confirms that Jonathan Shawn Goosby, TDCJ
number 1307836, has been housed in the TDCJ-Correctional Institutions division since July 6, 2005,
-3-
and has not been in the North Texas State Hospital during that time.
Upon review of the allegations in this complaint, the Court sees no basis to believe that
Goosby did not know or have reason to know of the events giving rise to his claims in 2005, when
he was discharged from the NTSH. As this suit was filed in 2013, his claims are filed too late. The
applicable two-year statute of limitations already had expired prior to the time Goosby filed suit. As
all claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations, they must be dismissed under 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2)(b)(i) and (ii).
ORDER
It is therefore ORDERED that the motion for leave to file an amended complaint, ECF No.8,
is GRANTED to the extent the “proposed amended complaint” attached thereto has been reviewed
and screened along with the complaint.
It is further ORDERED that all claims in this case are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii).
SO ORDERED this 22nd day of April, 2014.
_____________________________________
Reed O’Connor
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-4-
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?