Martin v. Crain

Filing 12

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 10 Motion to Amend Complaint filed by Robert Lee Martin, 6 Report and Recommendations. FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Robert Lee Martin's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint [#10] is DENIED.. Signed by Judge Sam Sparks. (dm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION

2015 JUL 16

flj4

8:32

EY7

ROBERT LEE MARTIN #1050629,
Plaintiff,

Case No. A-15-CA-326-SS

-vs-

THE HON. DAVID CRAIN, JUDGE 33 1ST
DISTRICT COURT, TRAVIS CO. TX,
Defendant.

ORDER
BE IT REMEMBERED on this day the Court reviewed the file in the above-styled cause, and

specifically the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge [#6], Plaintiff

Robert Lee Martin's Objections [#9] and Supplemental Objections [#1 1], and Plaintiff's Motion for
Leave to File an Amended Complaint [#10]. Having considered the documents, the file as a whole,

and the governing law, the Court now enters the following opinion and orders.
All matters in this case were referred to United States Magistrate Judge Mark Lane for report
and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§

636(b) and Rule

1

of Appendix C of the Local Court

Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Local Rules for the

Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges. Having granted Martin leave to proceed

informa pauperis (IFP), the Magistrate Judge duly performed a review of his claims pursuant to 28
U.S.C.

§

1915(e) and found they should be dismissed. Martin is entitled to de novo review of the

portions of the Magistrate Judge's report to which he filed specific objections. 28 U.S.C.
§

636(b)(1). All other review is for plain error. Starns

v.

Andrews, 524 F.3d 612, 617 (5th Cir.

2008). Nevertheless, this Court has reviewed the entire file de novo, and agrees with the Magistrate

Judge's recommendation.

Background
At the time he filed his complaint, Plaintiff Robert Lee Martin was confined in the Clements
Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal JusticeCorrectional Institutions Division. Defendant
is the Honorable David Cram of the 33 1st Judicial District Court of Travis County, Texas, who

presided over Martin's criminal case, Cause No. D-1-DC-95-955530. In that case, ajury convicted
Martin of aggravated sexual assault and sentenced him to life in prison.

Martin claims he has filed three post-judgment motions in his state criminal case upon which

Judge Cram's court has yet to rule. According to Martin, the fact his motions remain pending has
denied him ofhis rights to due process and equal protection. Martin asks this Court to require Judge
Cram

(sic throughout) "to Consider and Rule on Plaintiff 3 post Conviction Motions pending before

his Court. Also in the Future have [Judge Cram] to rule on Plaintiffs Legal documents Filed in his
Court in a reasonable amount of time instead of letting them Sit on the Court docket pending."
Compl. [#1-1] at 13.

Analysis
As Martin is proceeding IFP, his complaint maybe dismissed at any time if it is frivolous or

malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a

defendant who is immune from such relief 28 U.S.C.
788 F.2d 1116, 1119 (5th Cir. 1986).

§

1915(e)(2)(B)(i)(ii); Green v. McKaskle,

Prose complaints are liberally construed. Haines v. Kerner,

404 U.S. 519 (1972). However, pro se status does not afford the complainant "an impenetrable
shield, for one acting pro se has no license to harass others, clog the judicial machinery with
-2-

meritless litigation and abuse already overloaded court dockets." Farguson

v.

MBankHous., NA.,

808 F.2d 358, 359 (5th Cir. 1986).

The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that dismissal of this suit as frivolous is
appropriate. The Court has no power to grant the relief Martin seeks. Martin asks this Court to
compel Judge Cram to rule upon motions Martin has filed in Judge Cram's court, a request properly

construed as a petition for writ ofmandamus. See Moye v. Clerk, DeKaib Cnty. Superior Court, 474
F,2d 1275, 1275 (5th Cir. 1973). But "a federal court lacks the general power to issue writs of

mandamus to direct state courts and their judicial officers in the performance of their duties where
mandamus is the only relief sought." Id. at 1276. See also In re Campbell, 264 F.3d 730, 731 (7th
Cir. 2001) (federal court cannot control or interfere with state court litigation by way of mandamus);
White v. Ward, 145 F.3d 1139, 1139 (10th Cir. 1998) (same); Demos v. United States District Court,

925 F.2d 1160, 1161(9th Cir. 1991) (federal court lacks jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus
to a state court). Martin's request this Court force a state judge to rule on a motion is frivolous as
a matter

of law. See Demos, 925 F.2d at 116 1-62.

Martin strenuously objects to the Magistrate Judge's characterization of his complaint as a
petition for writ of mandamus, and requests the Court grant him leave to amend his complaint "and
fix the deficiency." Objections [#9] at 6. Martin's request is denied. Martin fails to explain how

granting leave to amend his complaint would cure the "deficiency," given the core of Martin's
complaint is his frustration with the length of time he has been waiting for a ruling and his desire
such a ruling occur. Were Martin instead to seek damages, he would fare no better, as Judge

-3-

Cram

is immune from suit for money damages.1 See, e.g., Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.s. 9, 9-10 (1991) (per

curiam) (collecting cases). That immunity cannot be overcome by allegations of bad faith or malice.
Id. at 11 (citing Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554 (1967)). Consequently, granting leave to amend

would be futile. The Court concludes Martin's suit is subject to dismissal as frivolous.

Conclusion
The Court advises Martin if he files more than three actions or appeals while he is in custody
which are dismissed as frivolous or malicious or for failure to state a claim on which relief may be
granted, he will be prohibited from bringing any other actions in forma pauperis unless he is in

imminent danger of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C.

§

19 15(g).

The Court further cautions Martin filing or pursuing any further frivolous lawsuits, similar
to the one dismissed here, may result in serious sanctions or penalties, specifically: (1) the imposition

of court costs pursuant to
to FED,

R. CIV. P. 11;

§

1915(f); (2) the imposition of significant monetary sanctions pursuant

(3) the imposition of an order barring him from filing any lawsuits in this

Court without first obtaining the permission from a District Judge of this Court or a Circuit Judge

of the Fifth Circuit; or (4) the imposition of an order imposing some combination of these sanctions.
The Court finally warns Martin for causes of action which accrue after June 8, 1995, the
Texas Department of Criminal Justiceupon receipt of a final order of a state or federal court that
dismisses as frivolous or malicious a lawsuit brought by an inmate while the inmate was in the
custody of the Department or confined in county jail awaiting transfer to the Department following

'A judge may be held liable for damages in only two sets of circumstances: "a judge is not immune from
liability for nonjudicial actions, i.e., actions not taken in the judge's judicial capacity," or for "actions, though judicial
in nature, taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction." Mireles, 502 U.s. at 11-12 (citations omitted). Neither
circumstance obtains in this case.

El

conviction of a felony or revocation of community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervisionis
authorized to forfeit (1) 60 days of an inmate's accrued good conduct time, if the Department has

previously received one final order; (2) 120 days of an inmate's accrued good conduct time, if the
Department has previously received two final orders; or (3) 180 days of an inmate's accrued good
conduct time,
CODE

§

if the Department has previously received three or more final orders.

TEX.

Gov'T

498.0045.

Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the United States

Magistrate Judge [#6] is ACCEPTED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Robert Lee Martin's Objections [#9] and

Supplemental Objections [#11] are OVERRULED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Robert Lee Martin's Motion for Leave to

File an Amended Complaint [#10] is DENIED; and
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiff Robert Lee Martin's Complaint [#1] is

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
SIGNED this the

/5

§

1915(e).

day of July 2015.

SAM SPARKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

326 rrokba.frrn