Rosario v. Davis

District Court, N.D. Texas·Decided February 16, 2022·No. 2:18-cv-00221·Unknown

Opinion

TS DISTRICT COURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTI RN DISTRICT OF TEX: FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS PLD AMARILLO DIVISION | FEB 16 2002 | ANGELO ROSARIO, § CLERK. US. DISTRICT □□ § By—— □□□□□ □□ □ Plaintiff, § § V. § = 2:18-CV-221-Z-BR § LORIE DAVIS, § § Defendant. § 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 November 26, 2018. Plaintiff filed suit pro se while a prisoner incarcerated in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (“TDCI”), Correctional Institutions Division. Plaintiff was granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis. On May 9, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (ECF No. 21). For the reasons discussed herein, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's Amended Complaint WITH PREJUDICE. FACTUAL BACKGROUND In his Complaint, Plaintiff makes general allegations that since 1977, TDCJ has favored certain religious faiths over others. /d. at 4. Plaintiff lists one incident — apparently in 2013 — where he alleges the denial of medical attention. Plaintiff, however, does not identify a particular defendant or the circumstances of his allegation. /d. In his Complaint, Plaintiff requests certain injunctive relief to “rectify” poor conditions in TDCJ in general. In short, the Complaint does not state a claim identifying a constitutional right violated by any particular person.

The Court allowed Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint to clarify his claims. See ECF No. 21. The Amended Complaint focuses on constitutional deprivations of other specific inmates, with no reference to Plaintiff's own injuries. Jd. at 1-3. 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 (5th Cir. 1991). ANALYSIS A plaintiff must suffer a personal constitutional violation at the hands of the defendants to have standing and redressability under Section 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 has failed to articulate any claims specific to him during his incarceration. Plaintiff has thus failed

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 (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).

to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Court therefore DISMISSES Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is DISMISSED. 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 the Amended Complaint by Plaintiff filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous. SO ORDERED. February a , 2022

MA HEW J. we TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Rosario v. Davis, (N.D. Tex. 2022).

Rosario v. Davis (Rosario v. Davis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Booker v. Koonce
2 F.3d 114 (Fifth Circuit, 1993)
Banuelos v. McFarland
41 F.3d 232 (Fifth Circuit, 1995)
Bilal Muhammad Ali v. Max Higgs
892 F.2d 438 (Fifth Circuit, 1990)
Coon v. Ledbetter
780 F.2d 1158 (Fifth Circuit, 1986)