Moore v. Houston Police Department

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION entered. Moore's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Dkt. 1] is GRANTED. His claims are DISMISSED as frivolous. Any remaining pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. (Signed by Judge Vanessa D Gilmore) Parties notified. (wbostic, 4)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

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

DAMON EUGENE MOORE,
(SPN #01833020)

March 31, 2017
David J. Bradley, Clerk

§
§

Plaintiff,

§
§

vs.

§

HOUSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION H-17-0301

§
§
§
§

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION

Damon Eugene Moore, an inmate of the Harris County Jail ("HCJ"), sued in January 2017,
alleging that the defendant violated his civil rights by arresting him without probable cause. Moore,
proceeding prose and in forma pauperis, sues the Houston Police Department ("HPD"). Moore
seeks his "freedom." (Docket Entry No. 1, p. 5). Based on a review of the pleadings and the
applicable law, this court dismisses Moore's complaint and enters judgment by separate order.
I.

Background

Moore states that he was arrested at his mother's house without an arrest warrant. He was
later told that he was being arrested for an aggravated robbery. Moore states that there was no
weapon, no fingerprints, and no identification of Moore as the perpetrator. Moore asserts that he was
illegally imprisoned without probable cause.
Moore seeks compensatory damages of$50,000.00. Online research reveals that the grand
jury of the 232nd Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, returned an indictment against
Moore on February 24, 2016, charging him with aggravated robbery. (Cause Number
0 \RAO\VDG\20 I 7\17-030 l.aOI.v.pd

15001240101 0). The indictment charged Moore with threatening the complainant with fear of
imminent bodily injury and death in the course of committing theft on December 28, 2015, by
exhibiting a deadly weapon.
II.

Standard of Review
A district court must dismiss a prisoner's § 1983 complaint if the action is malicious or

frivolous, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B). Under § 1915( e)(2)(B)(i), the court may dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint

as frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Hutchins v. McDaniels, 512 F.3d 193,
195 (5th Cir. 2007) (citing Black v. Warren, 134 F.3d 732, 734 (5th Cir. 1998)). 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 of a legal interest
which clearly does not exist." Davis v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1003, 1005 (5th Cir. 1998) (quoting
McCormick v. Stalder, 105 F.3d 1059, 1061 (5th Cir. 1997)).

III.

Analysis
Moore complains that his arrest was illegal because it was not based on probable cause. On-

line records show that a grand jury indicted Moore for aggravated robbery. "An arrest is unlawful
unless it is supported by probable cause." Flores v. City of Palacios, 381 F.3d 391, 402 (5th Cir.
2004). "Probable cause exists when the totality of facts and circumstances within a police officer's
knowledge at the moment of arrest are sufficient for a reasonable person to conclude that the suspect
had committed or was committing an offense." Ramirez v. Martinez, 716 F.3d 369, 375 (5th Cir.

0:\RAO\VDG\2017\17-0301 aOI wpd

2

2013).
The probable cause inquiry focuses on the validity of the arrest, not the validity of each
individual charge made during the course of the arrest. See Price v. Roark, 256 F.3d 364, 369 (5th
Cir. 2001); Wells v. Bonner, 45 F.3d 90, 95 (5th Cir. 1995). A grand jury indictment is sufficient
to establish probable cause. See Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 117 n.19 (1975). When the facts
supporting an arrest "are placed before an independent intermediary such as a magistrate or grand
jury, the intermediary's decision breaks the chain of causation for false arrest, insulating the initiating

party."Cuadrav. Hous. Indep. Sch. Dist., 626F.3d808, 813 (5thCir.2010). Thechainofcausation
remains intact, however, if"it can be shown that the deliberations of that intermediary were in some
way tainted by the actions of the defendant." Hand v. Gary, 838 F.2d 1420, 1428 (5th Cir. 1988).
In other words, "the chain of causation is broken only where all the facts are presented to the grand
jury, where the malicious motive of the law enforcement officials does not lead them to withhold any
relevant information from the independent intermediary .... " ld. at 1427-28.
Because the grand jury indicted Moore, he must show that HPD officers tainted the grand
jury's deliberations in some way. There is no evidence, however, that HPD officers played any role
in the indictment process.
Moore's claim against the HPD for false arrest is dismissed with prejudice as frivolous.

IV.

Conclusion
Moore's motion to proceed informapauperis, (Docket Entry No.1), is GRANTED. His

claims are DISMISSED as frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Any remaining pending motions
are DENIED as moot.
The HCJ must deduct twenty percent of each deposit made to Moore's inmate trust account

0.\RAO\VDG\2017\17-0301 aOI.wpd

3

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: [phone];
(2)

Sergeant M.E. McKinney, Inmate Trust Fund, 1200 Baker Street, Houston, Texas

77002, Fax [phone]; and
(3)

the Southern District of Texas, Attention: Manager of the Three-Strikes List.

SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on

lAR rzc.}v\ ~~

, 2017.

VANESSA D. GILMORE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Q·\RAO\VDG\2017\17-0101 aOI vopd

4