Prather v. Conroe Police Department Officers et al

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - The 1 civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 filed by Prentise Emmanuel Prather is DISMISSED with prejudice as frivolous. The dismissal will count as a STRIKE for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1983...*** Email sent to Manager of Three Strikes List. (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified.(sanderson, 4)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
June 03, 2021

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
PRENTISE EMMANUEL PRATHER,
Inmate #331283,

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Plaintiff,
V.

CONROE POLICE DEPARTMENT
OFFICERS, et al.,
Defendants.

Nathan Ochsner, Clerk

CIVIL ACTION NO. H-21-0884

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The plaintiff, Prentise Emmanuel Prather ( Inmate #331283,
former TDCJ #619443), has filed a civil rights complaint under 42
U.S.C.

§

1983

("Complaint")

(Docket Entry No.

1), concerning

criminal charges that are pending against him in state court.

At

the court's request Prather has filed Plaintiff's More Definite
Statement ("Plaintiff's MDS") (Docket Entry No. 15) , which provides
additional details about his claims.

Because Prather is a prisoner

who proceeds in forma pauperis, the court is required to scrutinize
the claims and dismiss the Complaint if

determines that the

action is "frivolous or malicious," "fails to state a claim on
which rel
defendant

may be granted," or "seeks monetary relief against a
who

191S(e) (2) (B).
concludes

that

explained below.

is

immune

from

such

relief."

28

U.S.C.

§

After considering all of the pleadings, the court
this

case

must

be

dismissed

for

the

reasons

I•

Background

On July 2, 2020, Prather was traveling north on Interstate
Highway 45 when he was stopped for speeding. 1

During this traffic

stop Prather contends that two unidentified

ficers employed by

the Conroe Police Department executed a warrantless search "without
probable cause"

and placed him under arrest after they found

lls" inside the vehicle compartment. 2

Prather was taken to the

Montgomery County Jail, where he remains in custody. 3
As

a

result

of

his

arrest

Prather

was

charged

with

a

controlled-substance offense in Montgomery County Cause No. 20-07
08004. 4

These charges are pending against Prather

District Court of Montgomery County, Texas. 5
the charges concern

"Ecstasy

Pills"

the 435th

According to Prather,

that the police officers

recovered from a backpack, which was under a blanket on the backseat floorboard of the vehicle Prather was driving. 6

Although

Complaint, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 3.
For purposes of
identification, all page numbers reference the pagination imprinted
on each docket entry by the court's electronic case filing system,
ECF.
1

3

Id.

4

Plaintiff's MDS, Docket Entry No. 15, p. 2, Response 3(A).

Complaint, Docket Entry 1, p. 3; Scheduling Order for Cause
No. 20-07-08004, attached as an exhibit to Plaintiff's MDS, Docket
Entry No. 15-1, p. 11.
5

6

Plaint

f's MDS, Docket Entry No. 15, p. 5, Response 4(E).
-2-

Prather reportedly consented to the search, 7 he maintains that the
traffic stop was illegal and that his arrest was false. 8

In

support of this claim Prather notes that the vehicle's registration
was

expired,

there

responsibility,

was

no

proof

of

insurance

or

and he had no valid driver's license,

financial
but the

officers did not issue a speeding ticket or any citation for these
violations. 9
Invoking 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Prather has filed this suit against
the Conroe Police Department and the two unidentified officers who
conducted the traffic stop that resulted in the search of his
vehicle and his arrest. 10

Prather also sues his appointed criminal

defense counsel, William Pattillo, and the trial judge who presides
over

the

Maginnis. 11

435th

District

Court

of

Montgomery

County,

Patti

Prather asks this court for the following relief: (1)

to intervene in his pending state court criminal case and dismiss
the charges against him;

(2) to place the police officers on

probation or suspension;

(3) to reprimand Judge Maginnis for

failing to acknowledge his pro se motions; and (4) to discipline

7

Id. at 4, Response 4(C).

Complaint, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 3; Plaintiff's MDS, Docket
Entry No. 15, p. 2, Responses 2 and 3(B).
8

9

Plaintiff's MDS, Docket Entry No. 15, p. 5, Response 4(F).

10
11

complaint, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 2.
Id.
-3-

Pattillo for failing to provide effective representation.12 Prather
also seeks "punitive damages" from the City of Conroe for the
officers' actions and he requests compensatory damages in the
amount of

$50,000.00 for lost property that

belonged to his

mother.13
II.
A.

Discussion

Claims Against Judge Maginnis
Prather contends that Judge Pattie Maginnis violated his

rights by refusing to acknowledge or rule on his pro se motions
seeking dismissal of the charges against him and other relief in
his pending criminal case. 14 Prather cannot recover monetary damages
from Judge Maginnis because "[j]udicial officers are entitled to
absolute immunity from claims for damages arising out of acts
performed in the exercise of the
Biggers, 31 F.3d 279, 284

judicial functions." Boyd v.

(5th Cir. 1994).

To the extent that

Prather seeks declaratory or injunctive relief in the form of a
reprimand, this court has no power to grant injunctive relief or
direct state officials in the performance of their duties.

See

Moye v. Clerk, DeKalb County Superior Court, 474 F.2d 1275, 1275-76
(5th Cir. 1973); � also Johnson v. Bigelow, 239 F. App'x 865 {5th

12

Id. at 3.

13Id.
14

Plaintiff's MDS, Docket Entry No. 15, p. 6, Response 5.
4-

cir. 2007) (per curiam) (affirming the dismissal as frivolous of a
prisoner's request for injunctive relief under 42 u.s.c. § 1983
against a state judge because "the federal courts have no authority
to

direct

state

courts

or

their

performance of their duties") .

judicial

officers

in

the

The pleadings do not otherwise

disclose any impropriety on the part of Judge Maginnis because
trial courts are not required to consider pro se submissions in a
case where a criminal defendant is represented by counsel. See In
re Scott, No. 01-20-00793 CR, 2020 WL 7062319, at *l (Tex. App.
Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 3, 2020, orig. proceeding) (per curiam)
("Criminal defendants are not entitled to hybrid representation in
the same case and a 'trial court is free to disregard any pro se
motions

presented

by

a

defendant

who

is

represented

by

counsel."') (quoting Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2007)).
To the extent that Prather seeks dismissal of his state
criminal charges, his claim is not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. See Preiser v. Rodriguez,

93 S. Ct. 1827,

1841

(1973)

("[W]hen a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration
of his physical imprisonment,
determination that he is

and the relief he seeks

is

a

entitled to immediate release or a

speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is
a writ of habeas corpus.");

Wilkinson v. Dotson, 125 S. Ct. 1242,

1245 (2005) (" [A] prisoner in state custody cannot use a § 1983
-5-

action to challenge the fact or duration of his confinement.")
{internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
explained previously in this case,

For reasons

there is no other basis to

intervene or interfere with Prather' s ongoing criminal proceeding. 15
Accordingly, the claims against Judge Maginnis will be dismissed as
frivolous.
B.

Claims Against William Pattillo

Prather contends that William Pattillo,

as his appointed

criminal defense attorney, has violated his constitutional rights
because Pattillo has not urged the trial court to consider his pro
se motions and he has
counsel. 16

u.s.c.

§

not

provided effective assistance of

Prather cannot state a claim against Pattillo under 42
1983,

which requires

a plaintiff

to

demonstrate a

constitutional violation that was "caused by the exercise of some
right or privilege created by the State or by a rule of conduct
imposed by the State or by a person for whom the State is
responsible."
{1982).

Lugar v. Edmundson Oil Co., 102 S. Ct. 2744, 2753

It is well established that criminal defense attorneys,

even court-appointed ones, are not state actors for purposes of a

See Order, Docket Entry No. 10, pp. 2 3 (denying Prather' s
Motion to Dismiss the criminal charges pending against him under
the doctrine of abstention found in Younger v. Harris, 91 S. Ct.
746 (1971)) .
15

Complaint, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 2; Plaintiff's MDS, Docket
Entry No. 15, pp. 6-7, Response 5.
16

-6-

suit under § 1983.

See Hudson v. Hughes, 98 F.3d 868, 873 (5th

Cir. 1996) (citations omitted);
Court No. 3,
"private

837 F.2d 677,

attorneys,

even

Mills v. Criminal Dist.

see

679

(5th Cir. 1988)

court-appointed

(holding that

attorneys,

are

not

official state actors, and generally are not subject to suit under
section 1983."). Therefore, Prather's claims against Pattillo will
be dismissed as frivolous.
c.

Claims Against the Conroe Police Department
Prather sues the Conroe Police Department for.his arrest by

the unidentified officers who illegally searched his vehicle and
filed a "fraudulent police rep ort" against him.17

Prather cannot

state a claim against the Conroe Police Department because, as a
subdivision of the City of Conroe, it lacks cap acity and is not
subject to suit.

See FED. R. CIV. P. 17; Maxwell v. Henry, 815

F. Supp. 213, 215

(S.D. Tex. 1993); see also Darby v. Pasadena

Police Dep't,

939 F.2d 311,

that,

agency

as

an

or

313-14

subdivision

(5th Cir.
of

the

1991)

(concluding

city,

the

police

department lacked capacity to be sued as an inde pendent entity).
Prather does not name the City of Conroe as a defendant, but
he seeks punitive damages from the City for actions attributed to
the police offers who executed the traffic stop, search, and arrest

17

Complaint, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 2.
-7-

that resulted in

criminal charges against him. 18

Prather does

not allege facts establishing liability under 42 U.S. c.

§

1983

because a municipal entity is not vicariously liable under a theory
respondeat superior for wrongdoing committed by its employees.
See Monell v. Dep't of Social Services of City of New York, 98

s.

Ct. 2018, 2037 (1978).
Prather otherwise fails to state an actionable claim against
the City of Conroe because he does not allege facts showing that
result of a constitutionally

his rights were violated as

Peterson v. City of Fort Worth, Texas, 588

deficient policy.

F.3d 838, 847 (5th Cir. 2009)

("A municipality is almost never

liable for an isolated unconstitutional act on the part of an
employee;

is liable only for acts directly attributable to

'through some official action or imprimatur.'") (quoting Piotrowski
v. City of Houston,

237 F.3d 567,

578

(5th Cir. 2001)).

In

addition, Prather's claim for punitive damages against the City of
Conroe

ls for other reasons because punitive damages are not

recoverable against a municipality in a suit filed under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983.

See City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 101 S. Ct.

2748, 2762

(1981)

(holding that "a municipality is immune from

punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983").

Accordingly, Prather's

claims against the Conroe Police Department and the City of Conroe
will be dismissed as frivolous.
at 3.
-8-

Claims For Lost Property

D.

Prather seeks to recover $50,000.00 in compensatory damages
for the loss of unidentified items of personal property that had
sentimental value because they belonged to his mother .19

The

Supreme Court has held that a negligent, or even intentional,
deprivation of property by state officials that is random and
unauthorized does not rise to the level of

a constitutional

violation or a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if state law
provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy.
Palmer, 104 S. Ct. 3194, 3204 (1984); see

See Hudson v.

Parratt v. Taylor,

101 S. Ct. 1908, 1917 (1981), overruled in part on other grounds by
Daniels v. Williams, 106

s.

Ct. 662 (1981).

Texas provides a post-deprivation remedy for inmates whose
property has been taken or destroyed in an unauthorized manner.
See Myers v. Klevenhagen, 97 F.3d 91, 94 96 (5th Cir. 1996) (per
curiam); see also Mu:r:phy v. Collins, 26 F.3d 541, 543 44 (5th Cir.
1994)

(explaining

that

wrongful

confiscation

of

an

inmate's

personal property may be actionable in Texas under the tort of
conversion);
2014)

Stauffer v. Gearhart, 741 F.3d 574, 583

(5th C

("In Texas, when an inmate's property is taken without

compensation, his remedy is in state court, not federal court.").
Therefore, Prather's claim concerning his lost property must be

19

Complaint, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 3.
-9-

dismissed as frivolous.

See Nelson v. Director, Texas Dep't of

Crim. Justice, 124 F. App'x 897, 898 (5th Cir. 2005) (holding that
both the civil rights lawsuit and appeal from the dismissal of a
prisoner's suit seeking compensatory damages for the loss of
person�l property were "frivolous").
E.

Remaining Claims
Prather's only remaining claims are against the unidentified

Conroe police officers who conducted the traffic stop and search
that resulted in his arrest. 20
his rights,

Arguing that the officers violated

Prather asks the court to place the officers on

probation or suspension.21

This claim fails because there is no

constitutional right to have an officer disciplined or corrected.
See Brown v. Gusman, Civil No. 15-1491, 2015 WL 6827260, *7 (E.D.
La. 2015) (citing Ordaz v. Martin, No. 93 4170, 1993 WL 373830, at
*9 (5th Cir. Sept. 15, 1993) (per curiam)).
In addition,

any claim that officers violated the Fourth

Amendment during the traffic stop and search incident to his arrest
is further precluded by the rule in Heck v. Humphrey, 114 S. Ct.
2364

(1994}.

Under that rule a civil rights plaintiff cannot

recover money damages based on allegations of "unconstitutional
conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions

20

complaint, Docket Entry No. 1, pp. 2-3.

21

Id. at 3.
10-

whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid,"
without first proving that the challenged conviction or sentence
has been "reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order,
declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such
determination,

or called

into

question

by a

issuance of a writ of habeas corpus [under]

federal court's

28 U.S.C. § 2254."

114 S. Ct. at 2372.
Prather's challenge to the traffic stop and ensuing search
that resulted in his arrest implicate the validity of the drug
charges that remain pending against him. See Wallace v. Kato, 127
S. Ct. 1091,

1099 n.5

(2007)

("
[A]

Fourth Amendment claim can

necessarily imply the invalidity of a conviction, and[] if it does
it must, under Heck, be dismissed."); Johnson v. Bradford, 72 F.
App'x 98, 99 (5th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) ("There is no merit to
[the plaintiff's]

contention that his Fourth Amendment claims

relating to the search of his apartment and seizure of cocaine are
not barred by [Heck] .") .

Because these criminal charges remain

pending against Prather, any Fourth Amendment claim concerning the
stop and search that
consideration and

resulted in

must be

his arrest

dismissed

with

is barred from

prejudice

to being

asserted again until the conditions described in Heck are met.

See

Johnson v. McElveen, 101 F.3d 423, 424 (5th Cir. 1996) (explaining
that claims barred by Heck are "dismissed with prejudice to their
being asserted again until the Heck conditions are met").
-11-

III.

Conclusion and Order

Based on the foregoing, the court ORDERS as follows:
1.

The civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
filed by Prentise Emmanuel Prather (Docket Entry
No. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice as frivolous.

2.

count as a STRIKE for purposes
The dismissal wi
of 28 U.S.C. § 1983.

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Memorandum
Opinion and Order to the plaintiff.

The Clerk will also send a

copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to the Three-Strikes List
at Three [e-mail].
��
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this ...!fl.� day of June, 2021.

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12-