Hunnicutt v. O'Neal et al

Filing 4

ORDER OF DISMISSAL for failure to state a claim. Case terminated on 12/2/2009. Any and all pending motions DENIED AS MOOT.(Signed by Judge Gray H. Miller) Parties notified.(gseidl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS H O U S T O N DIVISION R OY LEE HUNNICUTT, P l a i n t i ff , v. M ELINDA O'NEAL HALL, ET AL., D e fe n d a n ts . § § § § § § § § §

C IVIL ACTION NO. H-09-3721

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
R o y Lee Hunnicutt, a state inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this s e c tio n 1983 lawsuit against various state employees, quasi-judicial administrative officials, a n d attorneys regarding the revocation of his supervised release. He asserts that these in d iv id u a ls conspired to revoke his release by defrauding and cheating him, creating a new p a ro le "contract," and returning him to prison as acts of kidnaping and extortion of his p ro p e rty and labor. He seeks monetary compensation for these wrongful acts, and asks the C o u rt to arrest and convict the defendants. The Court DISMISSES this lawsuit for failure to state a claim, as follows. A n a lys is U n d e r 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court may scrutinize the basis of the complaint a n d , if appropriate, dismiss the case if the lawsuit is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim u p o n which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune

f ro m such relief. An action is frivolous if it lacks any arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v . Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Talib v. Gilley, 138 F.3d 211, 213 (5th Cir. 1998). A complaint lacks an arguable basis in law if it is based on an indisputably meritless legal th e o ry, such as if the complaint alleges violation of a legal interest which clearly does not e x is t. Harris v. Hegmann, 198 F.3d 153, 156 (5th Cir. 1999). The Court initially notes that federal district courts are not authorized to initiate and p ro s e c u te criminal charges at the request of civil rights litigants. See, e.g., United States v. B a tc h e ld e r, 442 U.S. 114 (1979). As a result, only plaintiff's request for monetary damages m a y be considered by the Court. A review of federal public judicial records shows that plaintiff unsuccessfully c h a lle n g e d the revocation of his supervised release in a section 2254 federal habeas petition f ile d in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, o n May 19, 2009. Hunnicutt v. Quarterman, C.A. No. 3:09-CV-0923-P (N.D. Tex. 2009). T h e petition was dismissed as barred by the applicable one-year federal statute of limitations o n October 3, 2009. In the dismissal, the district court noted that petitioner's supervised re le a se was revoked on December 4, 2000, and that petitioner did not seek state habeas relief u n til 2008 and federal habeas relief until 2009. Plaintiff filed the instant civil rights lawsuit a few days after the district court dismissed his federal habeas petition. Most, if not all, of plaintiff's instant claims, if successful, would necessarily imply the in v a lid ity of his supervised release revocation; thus, the claims are barred by Heck v. 2

H u m p h r e y , 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994) ("[I]n order to recover damages for allegedly u n c o n s titu t io n a l conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose u n la w f u l n e s s would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a section 1983 plaintiff must p ro v e that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by e x e cu tiv e order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, o r called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus[.]"). R e g a rd le ss , plaintiff's claims in this lawsuit are governed by the applicable state twoye a r statute of limitations. See Ali v. Higgs, 892 F.2d 438, 439 (5th Cir. 1990); Burrell v. N ew so m e , 883 F.2d 416, 418 (5th Cir. 1989). While the limitations period is determined by re f ere n c e to state law, the standard governing the accrual of a cause of action under section 1 9 8 3 is determined by federal law. Burrell, 883 F.2d at 418. The standard provides that the tim e for accrual is when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the b a s is of the action. Id. Plaintiff's factual allegations in the instant case show that he was a w a r e that he had suffered an injury when his supervised release was revoked in 2000. B e c a u s e plaintiff's claims accrued in 2000 but this lawsuit was not filed until 2009, p la in tif f 's claims are barred by limitations. Plaintiff's complaint fails to assert a viable claim under section 1983. C o n c lu s io n T h is lawsuit is DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim. A n y and all pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. 3

T h e Clerk will provide a copy of this Order to the parties; to the TDCJ Office of the G en era l Counsel, Capitol Station, P.O. Box 13084, Austin, Texas 78711; and to the Clerk o f the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, 211 West F erg u so n , Tyler, Texas, 75702, Attention: Inmate Three-Strike List Manager. S ig n e d at Houston, Texas, on December 2, 2009.

Gray H. Miller U n ite d States District Judge

4