Daniels v. Hokanson

• Court: District Court, N.D. Texas
• Decided: March 21, 2023
• Docket: 2:20-cv-00060
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

ny THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT ee HE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FILED AMARILLO DIVISION RAYMOND JOHN DANIELS, CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT TDCJ-CID No. 01616508, By. LE = Plaintiff, v. 2:20-CV-060-Z-BR CRYSTAL D. HOKANSON, et ai., Defendants MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's civil rights claims. Plaintiff filed suit pro se while a prisoner incarcerated in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (“TDCJ”), Correctional Institutions Division. See ECF No. 3. Plaintiff was granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis. See ECF No. 6. For the reasons discussed herein, Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff alleges that he was denied access to the courts by Defendant Crystal D. Hokanson at the Dalhart Unit of TDCJ. ECF No. 3 at 1-2. The essence of Plaintiff's claims is that Defendant Hokanson failed to provide Plaintiff with an in forma pauperis data sheet and appeal transcript request form as ordered by a district court. Jd. at 2-3. This claim appears to simply add an additional Defendant to Plaintiff's claims in case number 2:20-CV-046-Z-BR. Here, Plaintiff does not identify a specific case number, nor does he allege how the delay in receiving certain documents ultimately affected his case. However, a review of PACER shows that an in forma

pauperis data sheet was submitted on October 22, 2019, and a Transcript Order Request was also submitted on that same date in a Southern District of Texas case where Plaintiff appealed the denial of a writ of habeas corpus. See Daniels v. Davis, Director TDCJ, No. 4:18-CV-03179, (S.D. Tex. Dec. 5, 2019) (order denying JFP). The record in that case reflects that in forma pauperis status was denied on appeal because the judge determined the appeal was not taken in good faith. See id. Further, there is no indication in the record of that case that the delay in obtaining these two documents in any way affected the outcome of a specific case. See id. Plaintiff fails to articulate an action taken by the Defendant that led to adverse consequences in any court case. 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 (5th 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 (5th Cir. 1991).?

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 Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985). 3 Green vs. McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1116, 1120 (Sth 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, 41 F.3d 232, 234 (5th Cir. 1995).

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). 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 the defendants’ actions. See Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002) (internal quotations omitted); Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996); see also Johnson v. Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 299, 311 (Sth Cir. 1997). He must identify the nonfrivolous, arguable underlying claim. /d. “(T]he fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts requires prison authorities to assist inmates in the preparation and filing of meaningful legal papers by providing prisoners with adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained in the law.” Degrate v. Godwin, 84 F.3d 768, 768-69 (Sth Cir. 1996) (emphasis added) (quoting Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828 (1977)). Plaintiff has not established a “relevant actual injury” regarding any civil or criminal action before the courts. See Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351; see also ECF No. 3. Plaintiff temporary delay in obtaining two critical appeal documents did not result in the dismissal of his case. Simply put, his case was determined to be not meritorious by the district judge, which resulted in the denial of in forma pauperis status and the ultimate dismissal of his appeal. Thus,

Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for denial of access to the courts, and his Complaint is DISMISSED. CONCLUSION The Complaint is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED. March , 2023 Lopate HEW J. KACSMARYK ITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE