Richardson v. Gardner et al
Filing
18
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. All pending motions are DENIED as moot.(Signed by Judge George C Hanks, Jr) Parties notified.(ltrevino, 3)
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
GALVESTON DIVISION
STEPHEN RICHARDSON,
TDCJ # 01795088,
Plaintiff,
VS.
JUANITA VASQUEZ GARDNER, et al,
Defendants.
July 13, 2018
David J. Bradley, Clerk
§
§
§
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:18-CV-0065
§
§
§
§
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Stephen Richardson, an inmate at the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice–Correctional Institutions Division (“TDCJ”), filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 alleging violations of his civil rights in connection with his 2012 conviction for
manslaughter in Bexar County. Richardson proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. He
also has filed a motion to amend his complaint (Dkt. 6), a motion for appointment of
counsel (Dkt. 7), a motion to transfer venue to the Western District of Texas (Dkt. 11),
and a motion for default judgment (Dkt. 15).
Because this case is governed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), the
Court is required to scrutinize the pleadings and dismiss the complaint in whole or in part
if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28
U.S.C. § 1915A. After reviewing all of the pleadings as required, the Court concludes
that this case must be DISMISSED for reasons that follow.
1/6
I.
BACKGROUND
Richardson is incarcerated at the Wayne Scott Unit in Brazoria County.
According to publicly available records, he is serving a thirty-five year sentence for
manslaughter based on a 2012 conviction in 399th Judicial District Court for Bexar
County, Case No. 2010CR10629. See Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Offender
Information Search, available at https://offender.tdcj.texas.gov/OffenderSearch/index.jsp
(last visited July 12, 2018).
Richardson’s complaint attacks the judgement and sentence against him in
2010CR10629. In particular, he alleges that he was subject to a conspiracy and that the
judgment against him was falsified with another person’s identification number (Dkt. 1,
at 4).
He sues Hon. Juanita Vasquez-Gardner of the 399th District Court of Bexar
County, alleging that Judge Vasquez-Gardner “incarcerated Plaintiff without indictment
or notice and falsified judgment using false identification number” (id. at 3). He claims
that an unnamed TDCJ records clerk “falsified documents” related to judgment against
him with an incorrect identification number (id.).
He also sues three additional
defendants for their alleged failure to acknowledge or report the falsified documentation:
the TDCJ grievance department at the Wayne Scott Unit; TDCJ Parole Officer Ednika
Williams at the Wayne Scott Unit; and Warden Larry E. Berger of the Wayne Scott Unit
(Dkt. 1, at 3).
Richardson’s proposed amended complaint (Dkt. 6) seeks to add claims against
Bexar County District Attorney Bill Pennington and Alex J. Scharff, the attorney who
2/6
represented him on appeal, for their role in the judgment against him and his current
incarceration.
Richardson’s manslaughter conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. Richardson
v. State, No. 04-12-00379-CR, 2013 WL 5653400 (Tex. App.—San Antonio, Oct. 16,
2013, no pet.). He has filed multiple habeas corpus petitions, the most recent of which
was denied by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (“TCCA”) without written order on
April 25, 2018, WR-75,949-11.
See TCCA Case Information, available at
http://www.search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=WR-75,949-11&coa=coscca (last visited
July 12, 2018).
Richardson seeks immediate release from TDCJ, expungement of his record, and
$25 million in damages (Dkt. 1, at 4).
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
As required by the PLRA, the Court screens this case to determine whether the
action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or
seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A. In reviewing the pleadings, the Court is mindful of the fact that Plaintiff
proceeds pro se. Complaints filed by pro se litigants are entitled to a liberal construction
and, “however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). Even under this lenient standard a pro se plaintiff
must allege more than “‘labels and conclusions’ or a ‘formulaic recitation of the elements
of a cause of action.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic
3/6
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)); see Patrick v. Wal-Mart, Inc., 681 F.3d
614, 617 (5th Cir. 2012). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,
supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citation
omitted). Additionally, regardless of how well-pleaded the factual allegations may be,
they must demonstrate that the plaintiff is entitled to relief under a valid legal theory. See
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989); McCormick v. Stalder, 105 F.3d 1059,
1061 (5th Cir. 1997).
III.
DISCUSSION
Richardson brings this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the 2012
judgment against him was falsified. He sues the judge who presided over his trial, 1 as
well as four TDCJ officials.
Under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), a claim for damages
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that bears a relationship to a conviction or sentence is not
cognizable unless the conviction or sentence has been invalidated. To recover damages
based on allegations of “harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a
conviction or sentence invalid,” a civil rights plaintiff must prove “that the conviction or
sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared
invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determinations, or called into question
by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus [under] 28 U.S.C. § 2254.” Id. If
A judge is entitled to absolute immunity from a claim for damages when the claim arises
out of acts performed in the exercise of judicial functions. Davis v. Tarrant County, Texas, 565
F.3d 214, 221 (5th Cir. 2009). Moreover, “federal courts have no authority to direct state courts
or their judicial officers in the performance of their duties.” LaBranche v. Becnel, 559 F. App’x
290 (5th Cir. 2014).
1
4/6
a judgment in favor of a civil rights plaintiff “would necessarily imply the invalidity of
his conviction or sentence,” then the complaint “must be dismissed unless the plaintiff
can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated.” Id.
Public court records do not reflect, and Richardson does not claim, that his
sentence for manslaughter in 2010CR10629 has been invalidated or otherwise set aside.
Absent this showing, the rule in Heck precludes any claim for damages, as well as any
claim for declaratory or injunctive relief. See Clarke v. Stalder, 154 F.3d 186, 190-91
(5th Cir. 1998) (en banc). Therefore, Richardson’s civil rights claims are not cognizable
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 at this time and his claims for damages must be dismissed with
prejudice. See Johnson v. McElveen, 101 F.3d 423, 424 (5th Cir. 1996) (explaining that
claims barred by Heck are “dismissed with prejudice to their being asserted again until
the Heck conditions are met”).2
Plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed because it fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted and seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
IV.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows:
Plaintiff’s proposed amended pleadings also would fail to state a valid claim for relief.
Although Plaintiff seeks leave to add a claim against the prosecutor who brought the case against
him, prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity from civil rights claims for actions taken in
the scope of their duties in initiating and pursuing a criminal prosecution. See Van de Kamp v.
Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335, 343 (2009). Plaintiff also seeks to add a claim against the attorney who
represented him on appeal, but criminal defense attorneys are not state actors who can be held
liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Hudson v. Hughes, 98 F.3d 868, 873 (5th Cir. 1996).
Plaintiff’s proposed amended pleadings therefore are futile. See Villarreal v. Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A., 814 F.3d 763, 766 (5th Cir. 2016).
2
5/6
1.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the complaint
(Dkt. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice to the claims being asserted again
until the Heck conditions are met.
2.
All pending motions are DENIED as moot.
The Clerk will provide a copy of this order to the parties.
SIGNED at Galveston, Texas, this 13th day of July, 2018.
___________________________________
George C. Hanks Jr.
United States District Judge
6/6
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?