Romans v. 4-Price

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AMARILLO DIVISION FILED FEB 16 2022 DEREK ROMANS § Re CLE > □ TDCJ-CID No. 01938145, § 5 Ae DISTRICT COURT § ¥ TAA ory Plaintiff, § § V. § 2:18-CV-197-Z-BR § 4-PRICE et al., § § Defendants. § MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT Before the Court is Plaintiffs civil rights complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.§ 1983 against the above-referenced Defendants (ECF No. 3) (“Complaint”), filed October 16, 2018. Plaintiff filed suit pro se while a prisoner incarcerated in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (“TDCJ’), Correctional Institutions Division. Plaintiff was granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on December 7, 2018. (ECF No. 5). For the reasons discussed herein, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's Amended Complaint WITH PREJUDICE. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiffs Complaint and Amended Complaint appear to be written by a three-strike barred and sanctioned litigant known to this Court (R. Wayne Johnson). In fact, the Amended Complaint appears to be co-signed by a Johnson, W. See ECF No. 5 at 4. The Amended Complaint does not contain factual allegations specific to the Plaintiff and is more of a “gripe list” of all possible

crimes committed against inmates in TDCJ facilities. Jd. at 14. Without any factual claims to support a violation of Plaintiff's rights, this lawsuit is purely frivolous. 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 A plaintiff must suffer a personal constitutional violation at the hands of the defendants to have standing and redressability under § 1983. See Grandstaff v. City of Borger, 767 F.2d 161, 172 (Sth Cir. 1987); Coon v. Ledbetter, 780 F.2d 1158, 1160 (Sth Cir. 1986). Here, Plaintiff makes no allegations that he personally was harmed under the statutes he lists in his Amended Complaint. Thus, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is frivolous.

! A claim is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact. Booker v. a 2 F.3d 114, 115 (Sth Cir. 1993). 2 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 (Sth Cir. 1995).

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 that the Amended Complaint by Plaintiff filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous. SO ORDERED. February &, 2022

MA W J. KACSMARYK UNMIED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE