Opp v. Beggs et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER dismissing with prejudice 1 Complaint. (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified. (aboyd, 4)
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
March 21, 2017
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
KELTON HOWARD OPP,
KRISTINA M. BEGGS, et al.,
David J. Bradley, Clerk
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-17-0442
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The plaintiff, Kelton Howard Opp (TDCJ #2081491), has filed a
(Docket Entry No. 1), seeking damages for the loss of
The plaintiff is incarcerated and he has been
granted leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing
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."
1915 (e) (2) (B).
After considering all of the pleadings,
reasons explained briefly below.
Criminal Justice - Correctional Institutions Division ("TDCJ") at
the Ramsey I Unit in Rosharon. 1
The defendants are Kristina M.
Beggs and Branden J. Opp, both of whom reside in Houston. 2
Opp's Complaint concerns the loss of personal property and
business equipment that reportedly occurred during a foreclosure
Attorney" over Opp's property, which was lost when Opp's "homestead
was foreclosed upon[.]" 4
Blaming the defendants for the loss of
his personal property and business equipment, Opp seeks a total of
$135,000.00 in compensatory damages under 42 U.S.C.
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C.
a plaintiff must
(1) a violation of the Constitution or of federal law;
that the violation was committed by someone acting under
color of state law. See Atteberry v. Nocona Gen. Hosp.,
which requires that the alleged violation occur
under color of state law,
requirement." Lugar v.
is also known as the "'state action'
Edmondson Oil Co.,
In other words, the alleged harm "must be caused by the
Complaint, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 3.
Id. at 3-4.
Id. at 4.
Id. at 12.
exercise of some right or privilege created by the [s]tate or by a
rule of conduct imposed by the [s]tate or by a person for whom the
[s]tate is responsible."
Opp does not allege facts establishing that the defendants,
who appear to be family members related to Opp, acted under state
law or that their conduct was fairly attributable to the state for
purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Because it is evident that both of
the defendants are private parties and not state actors, Opp does
not state a claim for which relief can be granted under § 1983 and
his Complaint must be dismissed.
Conclusion and Order
Based on the foregoing,
the court ORDERS that the Complaint
Under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Docket Entry No. 1)
is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim.
The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Memorandum
Opinion and Order to the parties.
copy to by regular mail,
the TDCJ -
The Clerk will also provide a
Office of the General Counsel,
or e-mail to:
Austin, Texas 78711, Fax Number (512) 936-2159; and (2) the Manager
of the Three-Strikes List for the Southern District of Texas.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on thislO~~ day o
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?