John R. Alexander v. Victor Jay Wisner
Filing
6
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION denying 4 MOTION For Suspension of Rule of Rules and granting 2 APPLICATION to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.(Signed by Judge Vanessa D Gilmore) Parties notified.(glyons, 4)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
§
JOHN ROY ALEXANDER,
(TDCJ-CID #1679725)
Plaintiff,
§
§
vs.
VICTOR JAY WISNER, et ai.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION H-13-3237
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION
John Roy Alexander, an inmate of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Correctional
Institutions Division, sued in November 2013, alleging civil rights violations resulting from a denial
of due process. Alexander, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, sues Victor Jay Wisner, defense
counsel.
The threshold issue is whether Alexander's claims should be dismissed as frivolous. The
court concludes that Alexander's claims lack merit and should be dismissed for the reasons stated
below.
I.
Alexander's Allegations
Alexander complains that Wisner revealed private information during habeas proceedings.
Alexander provides a copy of the affidavit Wisner submitted to the 174th Judicial District Court of
Harris County, Texas, during post-conviction proceedings. (Docket Entry No.1, Ex. 1). In that
affidavit, Wisner explained that he represented Alexander on a charge of robbery in Cause Number
1263948. Alexander challenged the voluntariness of his guilty plea to the offense of robbery. In
responding to Alexander's allegation that counsel rendered ineffective assistance, Wisner stated that
o \RAO\vDGI,20 [1\13-12J7 aO I wpd
Alexander had admitted to committing the offense while "binging" on crack cocaine.
Alexander complains that Wisner's statements concerning Alexander's addiction violated
his right to privacy.
Alexander seeks unspecified compensatory damages.
II.
Discussion
A federal court has the authority to dismiss an action in which the Plaintiff is proceeding in
forma pauperis before service if the court determines that the action is frivolous or malicious. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e )(2)(B)(i). A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. See
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992); Richardson v. Spurlock, 260 F.3d 495,498 (5th Cir.
2001) (citing Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997)). "A complaint lacks an
arguable basis in law if it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, such as if the complaint
alleges the violation ofa legal interest which clearly does not exist." Davis v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1003,
1005 (5th Cir. 1998) (quoting McCormickv. Stalder, 105 F.3d 1059, 1061 (5th Cir. 1997)).
Alexander's claims for damages for deprivations of constitutional rights must proceed under
42 U.S.C. § 1983. That statute requires Alexander to present facts that, if proven, would show that
he has been deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and that the
deprivation was caused by someone acting under color of state law. Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S.
137 (1979). The conduct ofa private person, such as Wisner, is not state action under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. See Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 329 (1983). Alexander's claims against Wisner for
ineffective assistance of counsel cannot support a damages suit under section 1983 because the
attorney is not a state actor. Brooks v. Hughes, 98 F.3d 868,873 (5th Cir. 1996) (citing Polk Cnty.
v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 324-25 (1981)); Banuelos v. McFarland, 41 F.3d 232, 234 (5th Cir. 1995)
O:\RAOIVDG\10IJ\ll-J2J7.aOI.wpd
2
(holding that actions of counsel substitute in prison disciplinary hearing, like actions of public
defender and private attorney, are not actions under color of state law for purposes of section 1983);
Mills v. Criminal Dist. Court No.3, 837 F.2d 677, 679 (5th Cir. 1988) ("private attorneys, even
court-appointed attorneys, are not official state actors, and generally are not subject to suit under
section 1983").
Alexander has failed to plead facts showing that he has been deprived of a right secured by
the Constitution or laws of the United States and that the deprivation was caused by someone acting
under color of state law. Alexander's civil rights claims against Wisner are DISMISSED as
frivolous.
III.
Conclusion
Alexander's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, (Docket Entry No.2), is GRANTED. The
action filed by John Roy Alexander (TDCJ-CID Inmate #1679725) lacks an arguable basis in law.
His claims are DISMISSED with prejudice under 28 U.S.c. § 1915A(b)(l). Alexander's motion for
suspension of rules, (Docket Entry No.4), is DENIED. Any remaining pending motions are
DENIED as moot.
To the extent Alexander seeks habeas relief based on the ineffective assistance of counsel
or the voluntariness of his guilty plea, the court notes that a writ of habeas corpus is the appropriate
federal remedy for a state prisoner challenging the fact or duration of his confinement. See Preiser
v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489-90 (1973). Applicants seeking habeas relief under § 2254 are
required to exhaust all claims in state court prior to requesting federal collateral relief. See Fisher
v. Texas, 169 F.3d 295,302 (5th Cir. 1999). Alexander may challenge the ineffective assistance of
counsel in a federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after exhausting
O·\RAo\VDG\2nl~\11·12J7.a\)1
wpd
3
available state court remedies.
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
("AEDP A"), Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996), imposed a one-year statute of limitations
for federal habeas corpus petitions. Court records reveal that on October 15, 2013, Alexander filed
a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in Civil Action Number 4:13-3051, attacking his robbery
conviction in Cause Number 1263948. Civil Action Number 4:13-3051 remains pending on the
court's docket.
The TDCJ -CID must deduct twenty percent of each deposit made to Alexander's inmate trust
account and forward payments to the court on a regular basis, provided the account exceeds $10.00,
until the filing fee obligation of $350.00 is paid in full.
The Clerk will provide a copy of this order by regular mail, facsimile transmission, or e-mail
to:
(1)
the TDCJ - Office of the General Counsel, Capitol Station, P.O. Box 13084, Austin,
Texas, 78711, Fax: 512-936-2159;
(2)
the Inmate Trust Fund, P.O. Box 629, Huntsville, Texas 77342-0629, Fax:
936-437-4793; and
(3)
the District Clerk for the Eastern District of Texas, 211 West Ferguson, Tyler, Texas
75702, Attention: Manager of the Three-Strikes List.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on
NCAl.
._CZS
____ ,2013.
VANESSA D. GILMQRE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
O:\RAO\ VOG\20 11\ 13-J23 7 .aO l. \.vpd
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?