Jackson v. The State of Texas
Filing
5
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER dismissing with prejudice 1 Complaint. Email sent to Manager of Three Strikes List. (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified. (aboyd, 4)
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
May 16, 2019
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
PAUL JACKSON,
SPN #01267684,
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF TEXAS,
Defendant.
David J. Bradley, Clerk
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-19-1419
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The plaintiff, Paul Jackson (SPN #01267684), is an inmate in
custody as a pretrial detainee at the Harris County Jail.
He has
filed a Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights under 42 U.S.C.
§
1983
("Complaint") (Docket Entry No.
1)
against
the State of
Texas, alleging that his prosecution is unlawful because his arrest
was the result of racial profiling.
Because Jackson is a prisoner
who proceeds in forma pauperis, 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,
fails to
state a claim on which relief may be granted, or "seeks monetary
relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief."
§
1915(e) (2) (B).
concludes
that
explained below.
28 U.S.C.
After considering all of the pleadings, the court
this
case
must
be
dismissed
for
the
reasons
I.
Background
Jackson alleges that he was arrested in Houston,
September
13,
2018,
by
Officer
J.P.
Simmons. 1
Texas,
Court
on
records
available from the Harris County District Clerk's Office show that
Jackson is was charged pursuant to a felony indictment with making
a terroristic threat in Cause No. 1604976, which is pending against
him
in
the
174th
District
Court
for
Harris
County,
Texas. 2
According to the indictment, Jackson threatened to murder a public
servant, a peace officer, on September 13, 2018. 3
Invoking 42 U.S.C.
§
1983, Jackson sues the State of Texas,
alleging that his arrest was the result of "racial profiling" and
that the arresting officer handcuffed him too tightly. 4
Jackson
seeks compensatory damages for his "pain and suffering." 5
II.
Discussion
Jackson's Complaint must be dismissed because his allegations
are substantially identical to claims raised by him in at least
three other civil rights lawsuits that he filed in this district.
See Jackson v.
1
Harris County,
Civil No.
H-18-4535
(S.D.
Tex.);
Complaint, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 5.
2
See Indictment,
Cause No 1604976,
available from the
Harris County District Clerk's Office website,
located at
https://www.hcdistrictclerk.com (last visited May 15, 2019).
4
Complaint, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 5.
5
Id.
-2-
ll
Jackson v Houston Police Dep't, Civil No. H-19-278 (S.D. Tex.); and
Jackson v. State of Texas, Civil No. H-19-0578
(S.D. Tex.).
His
previous civil rights complaint against the State of Texas in Civil
No.
H-19-0578,
which
also
alleged
that
he
was
the
victim
of
"profiling" and handcuffed too tightly by the arresting officer,
was dismissed on February 28, 2019, for failure to state a claim. 6
A prisoner civil rights complaint is considered "malicious"
for purposes of the PLRA if it duplicates allegations made in
another federal lawsuit by the same plaintiff.
Moore,
980
F.2d
994,
994
(5th Cir.
1993)
See Pittman v.
(per
curiam).
The
allegations in Jackson's pending civil rights complaint are similar
to those
raised and rejected previously.
Therefore the court
concludes that the pending complaint is subject to dismissal as
malicious under 28 U.S.C.
Lynaugh,
878 F.2d 846
§
1915 (e) (2) (B) (i).
(5th Cir. 1989)
See,
~'
Wilson v.
(duplicative claims may be
dismissed sua sponte) .
Alternatively, Jackson's claims for monetary damages against
the State of Texas must be dismissed because they are clearly
precluded by the
Eleventh Amendment,
7
which bars
an action in
6
See Complaint, Docket Entry No. 1, pp. 4-5, and Order of
Dismissal, Docket Entry No. 5, pp. 1-2, in Jackson v. State of
Texas, Civil No. H-19-0578 (S.D. Tex.).
7
The Eleventh Amendment provides that "[t] he Judicial power of
the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in
law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the
United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or
Subjects of any Foreign State." U.S. Const. amend XI.
-3-
federal court by a citizen of a state against his or her own state
absent an express waiver.
See Martinez v. Texas Dep't of Criminal
Justice, 300 F.3d 567, 574 (5th Cir. 2002).
its Eleventh Amendment immunity,
abrogate state sovereign immunity.
and
§
S.
Ct.
1139,
1145
(1979)).
1983 does not otherwise
See NiGen Biotech, L.L.C., v.
Paxton, 804 F.3d 389, 394 (5th Cir. 2015)
99
Texas has not waived
(citing Quern v. Jordan,
Accordingly,
Jackson's
claims
against the State of Texas must be dismissed.
III.
Conclusion and Order
Based on the foregoing, the court ORDERS as follows:
1.
The Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights filed
by Paul Jackson (Docket Entry No. 1) is DISMISSED
with prejudice.
2.
The dismissal will count as a "striken 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 plaintiff.
The Clerk will also provide a
copy of this order to the Manager of the Three Strikes List at
Three Strikes®txs.uscourts.gov.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this the 16th day of May, 2019.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-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?