Phillips v. Williams et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered. It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED with prejudice as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. 1915A(b); and it is ORDERED that this dismissal counts as a "STRIKE" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Email sent to Manager of Three Strikes List. (Signed by Judge Ewing Werlein, Jr) Parties notified. (wbostic, 4)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
September 27, 2017

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
ARTHUR GARY PHILLIPS,
#00233468,

David J. Bradley, Clerk

§
§
§
§

Plaintiff,

v.

§
§
§
§
§

WILLIE WILLIAMS, et al.,
Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO. H-17-1805

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff Arthur Gary Phillips (SPN #00233468), currently in
the

custody

of

the

Harris

County

Jail,

has

filed

a

alleging a violation of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C.
connection with his arrest.

complaint
§

1983 in

(Docket Entry No. 1) .

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Willie Williams ("Williamsu)
lied and said that Plaintiff did not belong in the neighborhood,
Defendant U.S. Postal Service employee Terri Thomas ("Thomasa) said
that he witnessed the crime from over two football fields away, and
Defendant Houston Police Officer Davis ("Davisu) arrested him.
at 3.
§

Id.

The Court has screened this case pursuant to 2 8 U.S. C.

1915A and concludes that it must be dismissed as frivolous for

the reasons that follow.

I.

Standard of Review

Plaintiff's complaint is subject to screening under the Prison
Litigation Reform Act

(PLRA), which requires a district court to

scrutinize claims in a

civil action brought by a

prisoner and

dismiss the complaint, in whole or in part, if it "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).

Pleadings filed by pro se litigants must be construed under a
less stringent standard of review. See Haines v. Kerner, 92 S. Ct.
594, 596 (1972). Under this standard, a court liberally construes
a document filed prose.
(2007)

Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200

(citing Estelle v.

Gamble,

97

S.

Ct.

285,

292

(1976)).

"Nevertheless, "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice."
Ashcroft v.

Iqbal,

Atlantic Corp.

v.

129 S.
Twombly,

Ct.

1937,

127

S.

complaint "must contain sufficient

1949

Ct.

(2009)

1955,

(quoting Bell

1965

factual matter,

(2007)).

A

accepted as

true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'"
Id.

(quoting Twombly,

127 S. Ct. at 1974).

"A claim has facial

plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows
the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged."

Id.

An action is frivolous if it lacks any arguable basis in law
or fact.

Neitzke v. Williams,

109 S. Ct.

Talib v. Gilley, 138 F.3d 211, 213

1827,

1831-32

(5th Cir. 1998).

(1989);

A complaint

lacks an arguable basis in law if it is based on an indisputably

2

meritless legal theory, such as if the complaint alleges violation
of a

legal

interest which clearly does

not

exist.

Harris

v.

Hegmann, 198 F.3d 153, 156 (5th Cir. 1999).

II.

Discussion

Plaintiff brings claims against Defendants Williams, Thomas,
and Davis

(collectively,

"Defendants"),

seeking solely monetary

damages from them for the mental anguish he suffered in connection
with his arrest.

See Docket Entry No. 1 at 4.

Plaintiff does not

allege that he suffered any physical injury in connection with his
arrest; therefore, Plaintiff's claims for monetary relief fail as
a matter of law.

See 42 U.S.C.

§ 1997e(e)

("No federal

civil

action may be brought by a prisoner confined to a jail, prison, or
other

correctional

suffered while
injury.");

facility,

for

in custody without

Geiger v.

Jowers,

404

mental
a

prior

F.3d 371,

or

emotional

injury

showing of physical
374

(5th Cir.

2005)

(holding that§ 1997e(e) bars compensatory damages for allegations
of "mental anguish, emotional distress, psychological harm," and
the like).
Because Plaintiff is barred by the PLRA from bringing a suit
for compensatory damages for mental anguish without a showing of
physical injury, Plaintiff's claims must be dismissed as frivolous
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (1).
191, 193-94 (5th Cir. 1997)

See Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d

(affirming dismissal of claim seeking

3

damages

for

a

de

minim us

injury

as

frivolous) .

In

addition,

Plaintiff otherwise states no facts that would indicate that any of
the Defendants violated his constitutional rights.

Accordingly,

this case must be dismissed.

III.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is hereby

ORDERED that Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED with prejudice
as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. 1915A(b); and it is

ORDERED that this dismissal counts as a "STRIKE" for purposes
of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

The Clerk of Court shall send a copy of this dismissal to the
Clerk of the United States District Court for the Southern District
of Texas, Houston Division, 515 Rusk Street, Houston, Texas, 77002,
Attention:

Three-Strikes List Manager,

at the following email:

Three [e-mail].
The Clerk will enter this Order, providing a correct copy to
all parties of record.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this

I

4

g:-