Rice v. Garcia
Filing
19
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, granting 11 MOTION to Dismiss in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment, denying 7 MOTION to Add Party Texas Department of Criminal Justice, denying 9 MOTION to Withdraw, denying 15 MOTION for Joinder, denying 10 MOTION to Amend 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, denying 14 MOTION Motion for Sanctions - FRCP Rule 5 and 11(B). (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified. (aboyd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
WILLIAM LESTER RICE, JR.,
SPN NO. 00500400,
§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-13-0835
§
§
§
§
§
v.
ADRIAN GARCIA,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
William Lester Rice,
Jr.,
proceeding pro se,
has
filed a
Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and Notice of Standing for
Indemnification et al. by a person in state custody ("Petition")
(Docket
Entry No.1)
as
supplemented by his Addendum-Material
Information for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Docket Entry No.5) and Full
Indemnification Demand (Docket Entry No.8)
court
is
Sheriff
Alternative,
Judgment")
Adrian
Motion
for
Garcia's
Motion
Summary Judgment
(Docket Entry No. 11).
Pending before the
to
Dismiss,
("Motion
for
in
the
Summary
For the reasons stated below,
the court will grant Garcia's Motion for Summary Judgment and will
deny Rice's Petition.
I.
A.
Procedural History and Claims
Procedural Background
Rice
was
arrested on January
aggravated assault with a
19,
2013,
and
deadly weapon in the
charged with
337th Criminal
District Court of Harris County, Texas. 1
of
the
Harris
County Jail,
the
Board
While Rice was in custody
of
Pardons
and
Paroles
("BOPP") filed a parole warrant requesting that Rice be "arrested,
detained and housed until such time as he may be placed in the
custody of an agent of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
Institutional
Division,
or
until
Department of Criminal Justice,
Pardons and Paroles
"2
further
order
of
the
Texas
Parole Division or the Board of
On March 8, 2013, a Harris County
Grand Jury no billed Rice for the charge of aggravated assault with
a deadly weapon. 3
Rice remained in custody until April 19, 2013,
when the BOPP withdrew the parole warrant. 4
On March 22,
2013,
Rice
filed
this
action seeking to be
released from custody and asserting claims against Sheriff Garcia
for false imprisonment,
cruel and unusual punishment,
prosecution, and double jeopardy (Docket Entry No. 1).5
malicious
Respondent
lComplaint, Exhibit 7 to Motion for Summary Judgment, Docket
Entry No. 11-7, p. 1.
2Warrant, Exhibit 3 to Motion for Summary Judgment, Docket
Entry No. 11-3, p. 9.
Prior to his 2013 arrest Rice had been
convicted of various offenses. Id. at 9. After Rice was arrested
and charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, the BOPP
moved to revoke Rice's parole and filed a parole warrant on the
basis that Rice had violated his parole.
Id. at 8, 9.
3Affidavit of Deputy Ron Cherry, Exhibit 3 to Motion for
Summary Judgment, Docket Entry No. 11-3, p. 2 ~ 9; Order, Exhibit 6
to Motion for Summary Judgment, Docket Entry No. 11-6.
4April 25, 2013, letter from Deputy Ron Cherry, Exhibit 3 to
Motion for Summary Judgment, Docket Entry No. 11-3, p. 13.
5Petition, Docket Entry No. I, p. 1.
-2-
Garcia filed a Motion to Dismiss, in the Alternative, Motion for
Summary Judgment on May 3,
2013
(Docket Entry No.
11)
Because
Garcia relied upon matters outside the pleadings, his motion will
be treated as a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12 (c).
19(a)"
Rice has filed a "Combination Motion Rule 6 (b) (1)
&
(Docket Entry No.7), an Amendment to Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus Original "Motion to Dismiss Case with Prejudice or
Motion for Change of Venue"
("Motion to Amend")
(Docket Entry
No. 10), a Motion for Sanctions - FRCP Rule 5 and II(b)
for Sanctions")
(Docket Entry No. 14), and a Motion for Joinder of
Parties ("Motion for Joinder")
B.
("Motion
(Docket Entry No. 15).
Petitioner's Claims
Liberally construing his pleadings it appears that Rice seeks
damages against Sheriff Garcia pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based
on the following grounds for relief:
1.
False imprisonment because Rice was detained
"unreasonably,
maliciously,
and with reckless
disregard for the truth or fairness" and "without
investigation."
2.
Cruel and unusual punishment because Rice was not
released from custody after the grand jury returned
a "no-bill" regarding the charge of aggravated
assault with a deadly weapon, but when the parole
warrant was withdrawn.
3.
Malicious prosecution because Rice (1) has not had
sufficient access to a law library, (2) was not
allowed to speak during the Grand Jury hearing, and
(3) was prevented from "mounting an effective
defense."
4.
Double Jeopardy because Rice was not entitled to
bail due to his history of prior offenses.
-3-
II.
Rule 56 (a)
Standard of Review
provides that
"[t] he court shall grant summary
judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to
any material fact
matter of law."
and the movant is entitled to
FED. R. CIV. P. 56(A).
judgment as a
"An issue is material if its
resolution could affect the outcome of the action."
Swift Transp. Co.,
402 F.3d 536,
540
Boudreaux v.
(5th Cir. 2005).
Once the
moving party carries its burden of support for summary judgment
"the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to show that summary
judgment is inappropriate."
Morris v.
Covan World Wide Moving,
Inc., 144 F.3d 377, 380 (5th Cir. 1998).
not merely rest upon allegations,
The nonmoving party may
denials of its pleadings,
and
unsubstantiated or conclusory assertions that a fact issue exists.
Id.
Instead, the nonmoving party must "set forth specific facts
showing the existence of a genuine issue concerning every essential
component
of
its
case."
Boudreaux,
402
F. 3d at
540
(quoting
Morris, 144 F.3d at 380) .
A pro se litigant's pleadings are to be construed liberally.
Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983).
However, pro se
litigants are not exempt from complying with rules of procedure and
substantive law.
1981) .
Birl v.
Estelle,
660 F.2d 592,
593
(5th Cir.
In reviewing this complaint the court takes the factual
allegations of
the complaint
as
true
and draws
all
reasonable
inferences and resolves ambiguities in the plaintiff's favor.
Lormand v. U.S. Unwired, Inc., 565 F.3d 228, 232 (5th Cir. 2009).
-4-
._------_...
On the other hand, conclusory allegations or legal conclusions are
"not entitled to be assumed true."
1937, 1951 (2009).
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct.
To survive dismissal "a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.'"
Id. at 1950 (quoting Bell
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007))
III.
A.
Analysis
Official Capacity Claims
Since Rice is no longer in custody only his claims for damages
Rice sues Garcia in his individual and official
remain pending.
capacities.
Rice's
To the extent Garcia is sued in his official capacity,
claims
fail.
Garcia,
as
Harris
County Sheriff,
is
an
employee of Harris County.
A suit against a government official or
employee
capacity "generally represent [s]
in his official
only
another way of pleading an action against an entity of which an
officer is an agent."
(1985);
Monell v.
Kentucky v. Graham, 105 S. Ct. 3099, 3105
Dep't
of
Soc.
Servs. ,
98
S.
Ct.
2018,
2035
(1978); see Baker v. Putnal, 75 F.3d 190, 195 (5th Cir. 1996)
other words,
"the real party in interest in an official-capacity
suit is the governmental entity and not the named official."
v . Mel 0,
In
102 S.
Ct .
358 ,
361
( 19 91) .
Therefore,
Hafer
there is "no
longer a need to bring official-capacity actions against local
government officials,
units
can
be
sued
declaratory relief."
for under Monell,
directly
for
supra,
damages
local government
and
injunctive
Kentucky, 105 S. Ct. at 3106 n.14.
-5-
or
A governmental entity, such as Harris County, can be sued and
subjected to monetary damages and injunctive relief under Section
1983 only if its official policy or custom causes a person to be
deprived of a federally protected right.
38.
Monell, 98 S. Ct. 2037-
A municipality may not be held liable under Section 1983 on
the basis of respondeat superior or vicarious liability.
Id.
Municipal liability under a Section 1983 claim requires proof of
(1)
a policy maker,
(2)
an official policy, and
(3)
a violation of
a constitutional right whose moving force is the policy or custom.
Id.
Rice does not allege facts showing that he was denied any
constitutional right as a result of an official policy or practice
of Harris
County.
In his
response to the motion for
summary
judgment Rice alleges violations of his constitutional rights, but
he fails
to present probative summary judgment evidence that a
policy or custom of Harris County was the moving force behind the
alleged violations of his constitutional rights.
B.
Individual Liability of Sheriff Garcia
Rice also sues Garcia in his individual capacity.
impose
liability on Sheriff
\\ [t] he
plaintiff must
Garcia
in his
establish either that
In order to
individual
the
capacity
[sheriff]
was
personally involved in the acts causing the deprivation of his
constitutional rights or that a causal connection exists between an
act of the official and the alleged constitutional violation."
-6-
Douthit v. Jones,
641 F.2d 345,
346
(5th Cir. 1981).
The Fifth
Circuit has held that a county sheriff cannot be held liable on the
basis of vicarious liability for the actions of his deputies.
Baskin v.
Parker,
602 F.2d 1205, 1208
(5th Cir.
1979).
Rather,
"[p]ersonal involvement is an essential element of a civil rights
cause of action."
Thompson v. Steele, 709 F.2d 381, 382 (5th Cir.
1983) .
Rice
asserts
that
Garcia
acted
"in
collusion"
with
the
deputies and bailiffs to interfere with Rice's "due process and
fair
trial
rights. ,,6
Rice's
allegations do not
establish the
necessary "personal involvement," and Rice fails to establish any
other factual basis for imposing liability on Garcia.
C.
Motion to Add TDCJ
Rice has filed "Petitioner's Combination Motion Rule 6 (b) (1)
19(a)"
&
(Docket Entry No.7) seeking to add the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice ("TDCJ") as a defendant.
seeks to add TDCJ as
a
defendant
To the extent that Rice
to enable him to secure his
release from custody, the motion is moot because Rice is no longer
in custody.
To the extent
that Rice
seeks
to add TDCJ as
a
defendant in order to pursue a claim for damages under 42 U.S.C.
§
1983, the motion will be denied because Rice has failed to state
a factual basis that would entitle him to such relief.
6Mot ion
to Amend, Docket Entry No. 10, p. 3.
-7-
D.
Motion to Amend
Rice has filed a Motion to Amend (Docket Entry No. 10).
The
facts alleged in Rice's proposed "amendment to petition R have been
discussed where relevant in this Memorandum Opinion and Order.
Because the additional facts he seeks to add by amendment do not
raise issues of material fact that would defeat Garcia's Motion for
Summary Judgment, Rice's Motion to Amend will be denied.
E.
Motion for Sanctions
Rice filed a Motion for Sanctions alleging that Garcia sent
trial documents to an address not belonging to Rice (Docket Entry
No. 14)
Motion
Sheriff Garcia has filed a
for
Sanctions
(Docket
Entry
Response in Opposition to
No.
17).
The
court
has
discretion to impose sanctions upon a party acting in bad faith,
that is, "for conduct that abuses the judicial process. R
v. NASCO, Inc., 111 S. Ct. 2123, 2133 (1991).
not
persuaded
that
sanctions
are
Chambers
Because the court is
warranted,
the
Motion
for
Sanctions will be denied.
F.
Motion for Joinder
Rice has filed a Motion for Joinder of Parties (Docket Entry
No. 15).
Rice seeks to join additional defendants who are court
officials and are therefore entitled to absolute immunity for the
performance of their duties.
995 (1976)
i
Imbler v. Pachtman,
96 S. Ct. 984,
Clay v. Allen, 242 F.3d 679, 682 (5th Cir. 2001)
(court
clerks are also entitled to absolute immunity for acts they are
-8-
required to do pursuant to court orders).
allege
facts
that would overcome the
although,
immunity of
the proposed
He also seeks to add Harris County as a
additional defendants.
defendant
Rice's motion fails to
as
discussed
above,
he
has
failed
to
demonstrate that he was harmed by any official policy or custom.
See Peterson v. City of Fort Worth, Tex., 588 F.3d 838, 852
Cir. 2009), citing Monell.
(5th
Rice's motion will be denied as futile.
See Soliz v. Bennett, 150 F. App'x 282, 285-286 (5th Cir. 2005).
IV.
Conclusion and Order
For the ,reasons stated above, the court ORDERS the following:
1.
Defendant Garcia's Motion for Summary
(Docket Entry No. 11) is GRANTED.
Judgment
2.
Rice's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a
person in state custody (Docket Entry No.1),
Combination Motion Rules 6 (b) (1) & 19 (a) (Docket
Entry No.7), Motion to Amend
(Docket Entry
No.
10),
Motion for Sanctions
(Docket Entry
No. 14), and Motion for Joinder (Docket Entry
No. 15) are DENIED.?
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this the 26th day of July, 2013.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
?Rice has also filed a Motion to Withdraw/Strike-Motion for
Expansion of Time and Amend Parties (Docket Entry No.9)
Because
Rice does not explain what he wishes to withdraw, this motion is
also DENIED.
-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?