Caldwell v. Bill Clements Mail Room

• Court: District Court, N.D. Texas
• Decided: February 18, 2022
• Docket: 2:19-cv-00020
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS U.S. DISTRICT COURT AMARILLO DIVISION NORTHER YILED OF TENAS DEONTAE CALDWELL, § aie | 182072 | TDCJ-CID No. 01903202, § CLERK. US. micro Plaintiff, BY rege — SD 2:19-CV-020-Z-BR BILL CLEMENTS MAIL ROOM et al., Defendants. ; MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT Before the Court is Plaintiff's civil rights complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the above-referenced Defendants (ECF No. 3) (“Complaint”), filed January 23, 2019. Plaintiff filed suit pro se while incarcerated in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (“TDCJ”), Correctional Institutions Division. Plaintiff was granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis. For the reasons discussed herein, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's Complaint. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff alleges that in December of 2018 he was supposed to receive mail from Harris County or the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (“TCCA”). ECF No. 3 at 4. Plaintiff contacted both Harris County and the TCCA when he failed to receive the expected correspondence. Jd. Plaintiff asserts that neither Harris County nor the TCCA could provide him with the expected correspondence. /d. Plaintiff thus concludes Defendants unlawfully disposed of his correspondence.

LEGAL STANDARD When a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility brings an action with respect to prison conditions under any federal law, the Court may evaluate the complaint and dismiss it without service of process, Ali v. Higgs, 892 F.2d 438, 440 (Sth Cir. 1990), if it is frivolous,’ malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A, 1915(e)(2). The same standards will support dismissal of a suit brought under any federal law by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility, where such suit concerns prison conditions. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1). A Spears hearing need not be conducted for every pro se complaint. Wilson v. Barrientos, 926 F.2d 480, 483 n.4 (Sth Cir. 1991).? ANALYSIS Prisoners are entitled to “a reasonably adequate opportunity to present claimed violations of fundamental rights to the courts.” Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 825 (1977). Prison officials may not abridge or impair an inmate’s right of access to court. See Ex parte Hull, 312 U.S. 546, 549 (1941); Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 486 (1969). “While the precise contours of a prisoner’s right of access to court remain obscure, the Supreme Court has not extended this right to encompass more than the ability of an inmate to prepare and transmit a necessary legal document to a court.” Brewer v. Wilkinson, 3 F.3d 816, 821 (Sth Cir. 1993).

A claim is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact. Booker v. Koonce, 2 F.3d 114, 115 (Sth Cir. 1993). 2 Green vs. McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1116, 1120 (5th Cir. 1986) (“Of course, our discussion of Spears should not be interpreted to mean that all or even most prisoner claims require or deserve a Spears hearing. A district court should be able to dismiss as frivolous a significant number of prisoner suits on the complaint alone or the complaint together with the Watson questionnaire.”). Dismissals may also be based on adequately identified or authenticated records. Banuelos v. McFarland, 4\ F.3d 232, 234 (Sth Cir. 1995).

To prevail on a claim that his right of access to court has been violated, a prisoner must demonstrate prejudice or harm by showing that his ability to pursue a “nonfrivolous,” “arguable” legal claim was hindered by a defendant’s actions. See Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002); Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996); Johnson v. Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 299, 311 (Sth Cir. 1997). He must identify the nonfrivolous, arguable underlying claim. /d. No constitutional violation exists when a prisoner has time to submit legal documents in a court despite impediments caused by officials. Richardson v. McDonnell, 841 F.2d 120, 122 (Sth Cir. 1988). A civil rights claim cannot be based on “minor and short-lived impediments to access” in the absence of actual prejudice. Chandler v. Baird, 926 F.2d 1057, 1063 (Sth Cir. 1991). Plaintiff has not identified how the failure to receive the expected document interfered with his access to the courts. See ECF No. 3. As such, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's Complaint. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A, 1915(e)(2) and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), the Court ORDERS Plaintiff's Complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. SO ORDERED. February /G, 2022 A 3 er lofi MATHEW J. KACSMARYK ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE