Snellings v. Jennings et al
Filing
9
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER dismissing with prejudice 1 Complaint (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified. (aboyd, 4)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
SIDNEY RAY SNELLINGS,
TDCJ #1820678,
§
§
§
Plaintiff,
v.
STEPHANIE L. JENNINGS, et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-15-1708
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
State inmate Sidney Ray Snellings (TDCJ #1820678; former TDCJ
#714002)
U.S.C.
has
filed a
1983
§
Complaint Under the Civil Rights Act,
("Complaint" )
(Docket
violations of his civil rights.
Entry
No.1)
42
alleging
At the court's request Snellings
has filed a more definite statement of his claims ("More Definite
Statement" )
court
is
(Docket Entry No.8).
required
to
scrutinize
Because he is a prisoner,
the
the
the
claims
and
dismiss
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."
28 U. S. C.
§
1915A (b) .
After
reviewing all of the pleadings as required, the court will dismiss
this action for the reasons explained below.
I.
Background
Snellings is currently incarcerated by the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice - Correctional Institutions Division ("TDCJ") at
the Estelle Unit
defendants,
who
in Huntsville.
are
employed
Correctional
including:
Snellings
by
TDCJ
Officer
Assistant Warden Jeffery S.
II
at
sues
the
the
Coffield
Stephanie
Richardson,
following
L.
Unit,
Jennings,
Senior Warden John A.
Rupert, and Grievance Investigator Bennie J. Coleman.
Snellings' pleadings are incoherent, disjointed, and difficult
to decipher.
His primary claim appears to be that Officer Jennings
retaliated against him in some unspecified way or conspired with
other
defendants
to
cause
him
harm. 1
Snellings
alleges
that
Jennings used force or misused her authority by making a "threat"
against him on January 3,
in violation of the First and
2015,
Eighth Amendments. 2 Without offering any details, he also accuses
her of negligence,
harassment,
justice,
misconduct,
official
and blackmail. 3
violations,
Snellings
reportedly
bribery,
perjury,
identity
As a
suffered
obstruction of
theft,
human
rights
result of this mistreatment,
"severe
depression,
anxiety,
emotional distress," and "mental anguish."4
In addition, Snellings alleges that unidentified TDCJ "gang
intelligence
staff"
have
discriminated
against
him
in
an
lComplaint, Docket Entry No. I, p. 4i More Definite Statement,
Docket Entry No.8, pp. 2-3, 7-8.
2More Definite Statement, Docket Entry No.8, p. 5.
3Id. at 2, 7-8.
4Id. at 6.
-2-
unspecified
way
in
violation
of
his
First
Amendment
rights. 5
Without elaboration, Snellings also contends that TDCJ discriminates
generally
by
treating
"white
and
non-white
inmates
differently.fl6
Snellings appears to claim that Assistant Warden Richardson is
liable as a supervisory official for depriving him of due process
by denying him a fair investigation, discovery, access to evidence,
cross-examination, and legal aid in connection with an unspecified
proceeding. 7
Snellings also asserts that Richardson has violated
the Texas Penal Code in an undisclosed manner and has also violated
TDCJ policies,
vaguely
rules,
contends
that
regulations,
Senior
and procedures. B
Warden
Rupert
is
Snellings
liable
as
a
supervisory official for violating his right to due process and
equal
protection
administrative
as
well
procedures
and
as
for
agency
violations
guidelines. 9
of
various
Snellings
contends that Coleman violated his right to due process and equal
protection, among other things, during the course of a grievance
investigation. 10
SId. at 7 ~ J.S.
6Id.
7Id. at 8.
BId.
9Id. at 9.
lOId. at 10.
-3-
Snellings seeks unspecified relief for an assortment of state
and federal torts.ll
II.
Discussion
The court is obliged to give plaintiff's pro se allegations,
however inartfully pleaded, a liberal construction.
v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007)
97 S. Ct. 285, 292
594,
596
(1972)
(1976))
i
See Erickson
(citing Estelle v. Gamble,
see also Haines v. Kerner,
92 S. Ct.
(noting that allegations in a pro se complaint,
however inartfully pleaded, are held to less stringent standards
than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers).
Even under the most
generous interpretation the Complaint in this case, as supplemented
by plaintiff's More Definite Statement, fails to convey sufficient
facts to support a viable claim.
Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires "a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief."
While it is not necessary for a plaintiff to
plead specific facts, he must articulate "enough facts to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face."
Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007).
Bell Atlantic
"A pleading that
offers 'labels and conclusions' or 'a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do.'"
129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
(quoting Twombly, 127 S. Ct. at 1965).
l1Complaint, Docket Entry No. I, p. 4.
-4-
In other words,
of
action,
"[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause
supported
by
mere
conclusory
insufficient to establish a plausible claim.
statements"
are
Id.
The court afforded Snellings an opportunity to clarify his
allegations in this case by providing a More Definite Statement of
his claims. 12
Like the Complaint, however, Snellings' More Definite
Statement consists of little more than threadbare recitals of one
cause of action or another without any facts in support.13
not sufficient to state a claim.14
Twombly, 127 S. Ct. at 1965.
This is
See Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949i
Accordingly,
the Complaint will be
dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.
120rder for More Definite Statement, Docket Entry NO.7.
13More Definite Statement, Docket Entry NO.8.
14For example, Snellings' primary contention is that Jennings
and the other defendants engaged in a retaliatory conspiracy
against him. Snellings does not indicate why any of the defendants
would retaliate against him or describe a retaliatory adverse act
in support of a retaliation claim. Mere conclusory allegations of
retaliation will not suffice i a prisoner must point to direct
evidence of retaliation or a chronology of events from which
retaliation may plausibly be inferred. See Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d
1161, 1166 (5th Cir .. 1995). Likewise, absent reference to material
facts, conclusory allegations of conspiracy are not sufficient to
articulate a claim of conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
See
Brinkmann v. Johnston, 793 F.2d Ill, 113 (5th Cir. 1986) (citing
Arsenaux v. Roberts, 726 F.2d 1022, 1024 (5th Cir. 1982)) i see also
Wilson v. Budney, 976 F.2d 957, 958 (5th Cir. 1992) (dismissing an
inmate's conclusional allegations of conspiracy as "frivolous").
Snellings'
other claims,
which are similarly untethered to
supporting facts, merit no further mention.
-5-
III.
Conclusion and Order
Based on the foregoing, the court ORDERS that the plaintiff's
Complaint (Docket Entry No.1) is DISMISSED with prejudice under 28
u.S.C.
§
1915A(b) for failure to state a claim.
The Clerk of Court is directed to provide a
Memorandum Opinion and Order to the parties.
copy of this
The Clerk will also
provide a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order by regular
mail, facsimile transmission, or e-mail to 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 5th day of August,
2015.
SIM LAKE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-6-
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?