Davis v. Phillips et al
Filing
30
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified. (cfelchak, 4)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
FIDEL DAVIS, TDCJ #1689557,
Plaintiff,
v.
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL
JUSTICE - CORRECTIONAL
INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-15-1341
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The
plaintiff,
Fidel
incarcerated
at
the
Correctional
Insti tutions
Davis
Texas
(TDCJ
#1689557)
Department
Division
of
§
currently
Criminal
("TDCJ").
filed this civil action under 42 U.S.C.
is
I
Justice
Davis
originally
1983 in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, which recently
transferred his claims against TDCJ to this court.l
Because Davis
is a prisoner, the court is required to scrutinize the claims and
dismiss the complaint in whole or in part if it determines that the
complaint "is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted;" or "seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief."
After
reviewing Davis s
I
complaint
as
28 U.S.C.
required,
the
§
1915A(b).
court will
dismiss this action for the reasons explained below.
'This case was filed originally against several defendants,
including Officer C. Phillips, Warden Jeff Cafe, and Judge Larry
Gist. Only those claims against the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice were transferred to this court.
I.
Background
Davis is presently incarcerated by TDCJ at the Telford Unit.
Davis alleges that TDCJ officials in Huntsville, Texas, wrongfully
refused to lift a
"parole hold"
three-year prison sentence. 2
in 2008 while he was serving a
(Complaint Under 42 U.S.C.
Civil Rights Act, Docket Entry No.1, pages 3, 4)
§
1983,
As a result,
Davis claims that he served an extra five-and-a-half months before
he was released on parole.
Davis seeks nominal, compensatory, and
punitive damages for the extra time he was forced to serve.
Id. at
4.
II.
Discussion
The plaintiff proceeds pro se in this case.
Courts construe
pleadings filed by pro se litigants under a less stringent standard
of review.
See Haines v. Kerner, 92 S. Ct. 594 (1972).
Under this
standard" [aJ document filed pro se is 'to be liberally construed, '
Estelle
[v.
Gamble,
97 S.
Ct.
285,
292
(1976)],
and
'a pro se
2Davis does not identify the exact sentence at issue.
Public
records reflect that Davis is in custody as the result of several
felony convictions from Jefferson County, Texas, including: a 2004
conviction for possession of a controlled substance (cocaine) in
case number 88733; a 2004 conviction for evading arrest with a
vehicle in case number 91221; a 2008 conviction for evading arrest
with a vehicle in case number 96106; a 2008 conviction for
possession of a controlled substance (cocaine) in case number
96176; a 2008 conviction for possession of a controlled substance
in case number 96107; a 2010 conviction for possession of a
controlled substance in case number 09-6329; and a 2010 conviction
for evading arrest with a vehicle in case number 09-6755.
See
Texas Dep't of Criminal Justice - Offender Information Details at
http://offender.tdcj.texas.gov (last visited May 20, 2015).
-2-
complaint,
however
inartfully
pleaded,
must
be
held
to
less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.'"
Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007).
Even under this
lenient standard, the complaint must be dismissed because Davis's
claims are barred by the governing statute of limitations.
Davis alleges that TDCJ officials wrongfully refused to lift
a parole hold in 2008, causing him to serve extra time on one of
his sentences.
Civil rights claims brought under 42 U.S.C.
§
1983
are governed by the two-year statute of limitations provided by
Texas law.
(5th Cir.
See Piotrowski v. City of Houston,
2001);
Tex.
Civ.
Prac.
& Rem.
237 F.3d 567,
Code Ann.
§
576
16.003(a).
This means that the plaintiff had two years from the time that his
claims accrued to file a civil rights complaint concerning his
allegations.
1998)
See Gonzales v. Wyatt, 157 F.3d 1016, 1020 (5th Cir.
(noting that a cause of action accrues, so that the two-year
statute of limitations begins to run, when the plaintiff knows or
has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of the action) .
Davis's claim of wrongful imprisonment arose no later than
2008, when he was allegedly due to be released on parole from the
three-year sentence he complains about.
The complaint in this
action is dated July 29, 2013, which is well beyond the limitations
period.
Claims that are plainly barred by the applicable statute
of limitations are subject to dismissal as legally frivolous.
Gartrell v. Gaylor,
981 F.2d 254,
256
(5th Cir. 1993).
See
Because
Davis waited more than two years from the time his claims accrued
-3-
to file suit, his complaint is untimely and will be dismissed as
legally frivolous.
3
See id.
III.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the court ORDERS as follows:
1.
The plaintiff's Complaint Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
Civil Rights Act (Docket Entry No.1) is DISMISSED
with prejudice under 28 U.S.C.
§
1915A(b) as
legally frivolous.
2.
The dismissal will count as a strike for purposes
of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
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 or e-mail to:
(1)
the TDCJ -
Office of the General Counsel, P.O. Box 13084, Austin, Texas 78711;
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 the ~ 2015.
7
SIM LAKE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3Alternatively, because Davis does not show that his sentence
was invalidated or overturned in his favor, he cannot recover
damages for allegedly unconstitutional imprisonment under the rule
in Heck v. Humphrey, 114 S. Ct. 2364 (1994).
See Randell v.
Johnson, 227 F.3d 300 (5th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (holding that
Heck will bar a suit for damages due to unconstitutional
confinement even where habeas review is no longer available) .
-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?