Douglas v. Haynes et al

Filing 13

ORDER OF DISMISSAL pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2). All pending motions DENIED AS MOOT. Case terminated on 6/26/2009.(Signed by Judge Gray H. Miller) Parties notified.(gseidl) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/26/2009: # 1 order) (gseidl, ).

D o u g l a s v. Haynes et al

D o c . 13

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS H O U ST O N DIVISION R AL PH O. DOUGLAS, P l a i n t i ff , v. T H E OD ORE HAYNES, ET AL. , D e fen d a n ts. § § § § § § § § §

C IVIL ACTION NO. H-09-0598

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiff, a state inmate, filed the instant 330-page pro se section 1983 complaint a g a in s t fifty-five state judges, prosecutors, private attorneys, corporations, and other ind ividu als for various purported constitutional and statutory violations. Although plaintiff is a " th r e e strike" frivolous litigant barred from proceeding in forma pauperis, he paid the filin g fee in this case. Payment of the filing fee, however, does not preclude dismissal of a case under 28 U. S. C . § 1915(e)(2) as frivolous, malicious, for failure to state a viable claim , or for seeking monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. Ba se d on consideration of the pleadings, public records, and the applicable law, the C o u r t DISMISSES this lawsuit under 28 U. S. C . § 1915(e)(2) for the reasons that follow. B a c k g r o u n d and Claims P la in ti ff is a state inmate serving a life sentence in the Texas Department of C r im in a l Justice. He was convicted of two counts of state jail felony theft in 1999. The c o n v ictio n s were affirmed on appeal. Douglas v. State, 2000 WL 977393 (Tex. App. ­

Dockets.Justia.com

H o u s to n [14th Dist. ] 2000, pet. ref'd). In 2002, he was convicted of felony theft of p r o p e r ty and sentenced to life imprisonment. The conviction was affirmed on appeal, D o u g la s v. State, 2002 WL1988163 (Tex. App. ­ Houston [14th Dist. ] 2002, pet. ref'd), a n d his federal habeas challenge to the conviction was dismissed. Douglas v. Dretke, C. A . N o . H-05-0851 (S. D . Tex. 2005). These convictions precipitated a blizzard of

u n s u c c e s s fu l state and federal civil litigation brought by plaintiff against the complainants, p r o s e c u to r s , defense attorneys, witnesses, judges, and other individuals and companies d i r e c tly or indirectly involved in his criminal convictions, spanning seven years and, as e v in c e d by the instant lawsuit, continuing into the present. 1

See, e.g., Douglas v. Adamo, 2009 WL 783346 (Tex. App.­ Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, no pet.); Douglas v. Harris County District Attorney, C.A. No. H-09-0580 (S.D. Tex. 2009); Douglas v. Anson Financial, Inc., 2006 WL 820402 (Tex. App.­ Fort Worth, 2006, pet. denied); Douglas v. James, 2006 WL 66686 (Tex. App.­ Texarkana, 2006, pet. denied); Douglas v. American Title Co., 2005 WL 568290 (Tex. App.­ Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.); Douglas v. Bank of America, 2005 WL 341695 (Tex. App.­ Dallas, 2005, no pet.); Douglas v. Willis, 2005 WL 171458 (Tex. App.­ Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.); Douglas v. Dept. Veteran Affairs, C.A. No. H-03-2003 (S.D. Tex. 2004); Douglas v. Alamo Title Ins. Co., 2004 WL 3202879 (Tex. App.­ Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.); Douglas v. Quaker Home Financial Services, 2004 WL 1688281 (Tex. App.­ Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.); Douglas v. King, 2004 WL 908934 (Tex. App.­ Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.); Douglas v. Porter, 2004 WL 352700 (Tex. App.­ Corpus Christi, 2004, no pet.); Douglas v. Booker, 2004 WL 100409 (Tex. App. ­ Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.); Douglas v. Adamo, 2003 WL 22996954 (Tex. App.­ Houston [14th Dist.]2003, no pet.); Douglas v. Porter, 2003 WL 21193041 (Tex. App.­ Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, no pet.); Douglas v. Adamo, 2003 WL 1088163 (Tex. App.­ Houston [14th Dist. ] 2003, no pet.); Douglas v. Porter, 2002 WL 31682357 (Tex. App.­ Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.); In re Douglas, 2002 WL 1822342 (Tex. App.­ Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.); Douglas v. Wilkinson, C.A. No. H-99-3922 (S.D. Tex. 2000). Plaintiff's state litigation also included lawsuits regarding his standing as a "vexatious litigant." See, e.g., Douglas v. Jones, 2009 WL 522723 (Tex. App.­ Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, no pet.), Douglas v. American Title Co., 196 S.W.3d 876 (Tex. App. ­ Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.). 2

1

In the instant lawsuit, plaintiff once again complains that his convictions were the r e su lt of conspiracy, perjury, bad faith, or other wrongful or negligent acts on the part of th e named defendants. He seeks monetary damages for these alleged violations of his c o n s titu t io n a l and statutory rights. Analysis N e ith e r plaintiff's pleadings nor this Court's review of applicable public records sh o w s that his convictions have been set aside, reversed, or otherwise judicially called into q u e stio n . As plaintiff's instant claims would, if successful, necessarily implicate the

v a lid ity of his criminal convictions, his claims are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U. S. 4 7 7 , 486-87 (1994). Regardless, it is clear from the face of plaintiff's pleadings that his claims are b a r r e d by the applicable two-year statute of limitations. The events giving rise to his c o n stitu tio n a l and statutory claims arose prior to, within, or shortly after his state criminal p r o c e e d in g s, and plaintiff's pleadings evince his awareness of these events underlying his c la im s at or near the time they occurred. See Harris v. Hegmann, 198 F.3d 153, 156-57 (5 th Cir. 1999); Piotrowski v. City of Houston, 51 F.3d 512, 516 (5th Cir. 1995). Moreover, w ith the exception of two police department detectives, the defendants named by plaintiff a r e either not state actors for purposes of section 1983, or are immune from the relief so u g h t by plaintiff. See Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 321-22 (1981); Hudson v. H u g h e s, 98 F.3d 868, 873 (5th Cir. 1996). Further, plaintiff's allegations that, seven or m o r e years ago, all fifty-five defendants conspired and acted in concert to procure his 3

c r im in a l convictions, are conclusory, unsupported by facts, and merit no further e n c o u r a g e m e n t here by this Court. See, e. g . , Du Bois v. Warne, No. 08-20682, 2009 WL 1 5 8 2 5 4 8 (5th Cir. 2009). To the extent plaintiff has raised claims for recovery under state law, a federal court m a y decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims under 28 U. S. C . § 1367(c)(3), where the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original ju r isd ictio n . Because plaintiff's federal claims are dismissed, this Court declines to

e x e r c is e jurisdiction over any state statutory or common law claims plaintiff may have a ss e r te d . Conclusion T h is lawsuit is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U. S. C . § 1915(e)(2). All pending m o tio n s are DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk will provide copies of this order to the parties. Sig n e d at Houston, Texas, on June 26, 2009.

Gray H. Miller U n ite d States District Judge

4