Richard v. Doe

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER dismissing with prejudice 1 Complaint, Deadlines terminated. (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified. (aboyd, 4)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION

ALBERT RICHARD, BOP #38190-079,
Plaintiff,

§
§
§
§

v.

JOHN DOE,

CIVIL ACTION NO. H-15-0947

§
§
§
§

Defendant.

§

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Federal prison inmate Albert Richard (BOP #38190-079), who has
filed

a

complaint

under

42

U. S. C.

1983,

§

states

incarcerated for theft of funds from Chase Bank.
that

an

unidentified

( "John

individual

responsible for most of the money taken.
and has not paid the filing

he

is

Richard alleges

Doe" )

is

actually

Richard proceeds pro se

After reviewing all of the

fee.

pleadings as required by 28 U.S.C.

that

§

1915A,

the court concludes

that this case should be dismissed for reasons that follow.
Richard is currently in custody at FCI
correctional

institution.

Pollock,

a

federal

Court records show that Richard was

convicted in this court of conspiracy to commit bank fraud.
United States v.
2012).

Albert

Richard,

No.

H-11-CR-477-4

(S.D.

See
Tex.

Richard has previously filed pleadings in which he has

admitted that he was involved in a credit skimming conspiracy from
January

of

2011

through

June

of

2011.

See

Richard

v.

Doe,

No. H-14-3701 (S.D. Tex.)
(S.D. Tex.)

(habeas)

(civil rights)

i

Richard v. Doe, No. H-15-0021

In the prior actions Richard alleged

that Chase Bank sent him a Form 1099 reporting that he had received
$8,319.00.

Id.

Richard further alleged that at approximately the

same time a presentence report was issued, which held him liable
for $191,340.61.

Richard complained that his sentence was based on

the higher dollar amount and that he was ordered to pay restitution
based on the presentence report.

He claimed that he was damaged in

the amount of $183,021.61 (the difference between the two reports)
These prior actions were dismissed as having no basis in law.
Richard raises identical claims in the present action.

He

seeks a judgment against an unidentified defendant who cannot be
held liable because he is not a state actor.
Dep't Stores,
claim that

Inc., 277 F.3d 743

he

is

(5th Cir. 2001).

illegally incarcerated

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994)

See Morris v. Dillard

is

Moreover, his

barred by Heck v.

Richard's complaint must therefore

be dismissed as frivolous because it has no basis in law.
U.S.C.

§

1915(e) i 28 U.S.C.

507

(5th Cir. 1999)

are

duplicative

of

§

1915Ai Berry v. Brady,

those

Safety and Corrections,

Wilson v. Lynaugh,

192 F.3d 504,

Moreover, Richard's allegations and claims
raised

subject to dismissal as malicious.

citing Pittman v.

28

Moore,

508 F.

in his

prior actions

Lewis v. Secretary of Public

App'x 341,

980 F.2d 994,

878 F. 2d 846,

850

344

(5th Cir.

2013),

994-95

(5th Cir.

1993)

(5th Cir.

Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988).
-2-

and are

1989)

i

i

Bailey v.

Richard must pay the filing fee,
Inmate

Trust

Fund

will

be

ordered

and the Bureau of Prisons
to

withdraw

Richard's account pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b).

the

fee

from

See Hatchet v.

Nettles, 201 F.3d 651 (5th Cir. 2000).
Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the court ORDERS as follows:
1.

Officials at the Bureau of Prisons Inmate Trust
Fund are ORDERED to deduct funds from the inmate
trust account of Albert Richard [BOP #38190-079]
and forward them to the Clerk on a regular basis,
in compliance with the provisions of 28 U. S. C.
§ 1915 (b), until the entire filing fee ($350.00)
has been paid.

2.

The Initial Pretrial and Scheduling Conference set
for September 10, 2015 (Docket Entry No.2), is
CANCELED.

3.

Richard's Civil Fraud Complaint Under 28 U.S.C.
§1331 and §1332 (Docket Entry No.1) is DISMISSED
with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2) (B) for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.

4.

Richard is admonished that he may face monetary
sanctions if he continues to file duplicative and
frivolous complaints or pleadings with the courts.

5.

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this
Memorandum Opinion and Order to the parties.
The
Clerk will also provide a copy of this Order by
regular mail, facsimile transmission, or e-mail to
(1) the Inmate Trust Fund Officer, Pollock FCI
Medium, PO Box 4050, Pollock, LA 71467; and (2) the
District Clerk for the Eastern District of Texas,
Tyler Division, 211 West Ferguson, Tyler, Texas
75702, Attention: Manager of the Three-Strikes List.

SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 21st day

0

SIM LAKE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-3-