IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION STEVEN BRADLEY § V. CIVIL NO, 4:25-CV-866-P TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS, ET AL. : FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE This case is now before the Court for review of pro se Plaintiff Steven Bradley’s civil suit. In this case, Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis and, as such, his pleadings are subject to preliminary screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Pursuant to this statute, the Court shall, sua sponte, dismiss a case proceeding IFP if the court determines that, infer alia, it is frivolous or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. See id. On August 12, 2025, Bradicy filed a Complaint [doc. 1] in the above-styled and numbered action, Subsequently, on August 19, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis [doc. 17]. That same day, the Court, after noting that two similar cases were recently consolidated with this case, ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint no later than September 3, 2025 [doc. 19]. On August 22, 2025, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint [doc. 20], which is the live pleading before this Court. In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff sues the following: (1) “Tarrant County, Texas (in official capacity); (2) “Justice of the Peace, Precinct |, Tarrant County (in official capacity); and (3) “Tarrant County Clerk (in official capacity).) (Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (“Pl.’s Am. Compl.” at 1-2.) Plaintiff alleges multiple state and federal constitutional claims, statutory and other claims against Defendants for denying him access to Tarrant County Justice of the Peace
Court, Precinct { (“JP Court, Precinct 1”). (See generally Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (“PL.’s Am, Compl.”) Specifically, Plaintiff claims that his access to such court was denied when court staff forced him “to use an electronic filing system with ... vulnerabilities” and refused to accept his in-person filing, (Pl.’s Am. Compl. at 2, 5.) Bradley attaches to his Amended Complaint several documents purporting to show his multiple attempts to efile a case in JP Court, Precinct 1 against Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. (“Capital One Bank”) and the rejection of such attempts. (Pl.’s Am. Compl, Exhibit (“Ex.”) 11.) Bradley seeks injunctive relief “requiring JP1 to accept his [in-person] filings and legal tender.” (PI.’s Am. Compl. at 7.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 8(a)(2) directs that a “pleading that states a claim for relief must contain , , . a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed, R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). A plaintiff, however, must plead specific facts, not mere conclusory allegations, to avoid dismissal. See Schultea v. Wood, 47 F.3d 1427, 1431 (Sth Cir. 1995) (en banc); see also Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376, 378 (Sth Cir, 2002) (“fC]onclusory allegations or legal conclusions masquerading as factual conclusions will not suffice to prevent a motion to dismiss” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Rule 8 “demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me-accusation.” Ashcroft v. [gbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009), In screening Bradley’s case, the Court may rely on Bradley’s complaint and attached documents as well as “‘documents incorporated into the complaint by reference and matters of which a court may take judicial notice.” Benavides v. Harlingen Police Dep't, No. 1:24-cv-179, 2025 WL 1477011, at *3 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 2025) (quoting Dorsey v. Portfolio Equities, Ine., 540 F.3d 333, 338 (Sth Cir, 2008)); see also Fed. R. Evid. 201(f) advisory committee’s note (“[JJudicial notice may be taken at any stage of the proceeding.”).
Moreover courts have generally held that “there is no denial of access to courts if alternative means of assuring access to courts were available.” Williams v. Curtis, No, 3:16-CV- 151-D-BH, 2017 WL 979053, at *6 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 18, 2017), In addition, “to prevail on an access to courts claim, a [claimant] must demonstrate prejudice or harm by showing that his ability to pursue a ‘nonfrivolous,’ ‘arguable’ legal claim was hindered by the defendants’ actions.” Wilson v, Tex. Civ. Commitment Cent, Facility Dir., No. 5:20-CV-267-H-BQ, 2021 WL 2653528, at *3 (N.D. Tex. May If, 2021). In other words, Plaintiff ““‘must demonstrate that the lack of access has prevented him from filing or caused him to lose a pending case.’” /d. (quoting Foreman v. Bowles, No. 3:01-CV-2117-G, 2003 WL. 21730136, at *3 (N.D. Tex, Mar. 31, 2003)). “There is no constitutional violation when a [claimant] has time to submit legal documents in a court despite impediments caused by officials.” Russie v. Davis, No, 2:17-CV-225-2-BR, 2020 WL 6550502, at *4 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 5, 2020). “A civil rights claim cannot be based on ‘minor and short-lived impediments to access’ in the absence of actual prejudice.” Jd. (citing Chandler v. Baird, 926 F.2d 1057, 1063 (Sth Cir, 1991)). Having reviewed the allegations in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, the Court FINDS and CONCLUDES that Plaintiff has, as the very least, failed to state a claim for denial of access to the courts. While Bradley alleges that he has no alternative means to access the JP Court, Precinct 1, “to sufficiently plead an access-to-courts claim, even a non-prisoner[, such as Bradley,] must plead that ‘official acts... may allegedly have caused the loss ... of a meritorious case.” Sanders v. Rose, 576 F, App’x 91, 94 (3rd Cir. 2014) (quoting Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 416 (2002}). In this case, it is clear that any alleged acts by Defendants did not actually result in the loss of Bradley’s ability to file a meritorious case in JP Court, Precinct 1. To begin with, a search of JP Court, Precinct 1’s public court records, which this Court takes judicial notice of, shows that
Bradley, on September [1, 2025, successfully filed at least five pending cases in JP Court, Precinct One such suit filed by Bradley, case no. JP01-25-SC00017109, is against Capitol One Bank,” the same defendant that Bradley referenced in the exhibits attached to his Amended Complaint that he was allegedly not allowed to file suit against. The docket entry in this case in JP Court, Precinct | shows that the original petition was filed “IN PERSON/BY PLTF.” (See Ex, B.) Thus, Bradley has been allowed to file his case in JP Court, Precinct | in person. In addition, Bradley has failed to ailege in his Amended Complaint any facts indicating that the underlying claim he was trying to file (and has now successfully filed) against Capital One Bank in JP Court, Precinct | is meritorious or nonfrivolous. See, e.g., Wilson, 2021 WL 2653528, at *3 (stating that “to prevail on an access to courts claim a [claimant] must demonstrate prejudice by showing that his ability to pursue a nonfrivolous, arguable legal claim was hindered by the defendants’ actions”) (internal quotation marks omitted).) Consequently, the Court FINDS and CONCLUDES that Bradley has failed to state a valid claim upon which relief can be granted.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION STEVEN BRADLEY § V. CIVIL NO, 4:25-CV-866-P TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS, ET AL. : FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE This case is now before the Court for review of pro se Plaintiff Steven Bradley’s civil suit. In this case, Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis and, as such, his pleadings are subject to preliminary screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Pursuant to this statute, the Court shall, sua sponte, dismiss a case proceeding IFP if the court determines that, infer alia, it is frivolous or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. See id. On August 12, 2025, Bradicy filed a Complaint [doc. 1] in the above-styled and numbered action, Subsequently, on August 19, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis [doc. 17]. That same day, the Court, after noting that two similar cases were recently consolidated with this case, ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint no later than September 3, 2025 [doc. 19]. On August 22, 2025, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint [doc. 20], which is the live pleading before this Court. In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff sues the following: (1) “Tarrant County, Texas (in official capacity); (2) “Justice of the Peace, Precinct |, Tarrant County (in official capacity); and (3) “Tarrant County Clerk (in official capacity).) (Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (“Pl.’s Am. Compl.” at 1-2.) Plaintiff alleges multiple state and federal constitutional claims, statutory and other claims against Defendants for denying him access to Tarrant County Justice of the Peace
Court, Precinct { (“JP Court, Precinct 1”). (See generally Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (“PL.’s Am, Compl.”) Specifically, Plaintiff claims that his access to such court was denied when court staff forced him “to use an electronic filing system with ... vulnerabilities” and refused to accept his in-person filing, (Pl.’s Am. Compl. at 2, 5.) Bradley attaches to his Amended Complaint several documents purporting to show his multiple attempts to efile a case in JP Court, Precinct 1 against Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. (“Capital One Bank”) and the rejection of such attempts. (Pl.’s Am. Compl, Exhibit (“Ex.”) 11.) Bradley seeks injunctive relief “requiring JP1 to accept his [in-person] filings and legal tender.” (PI.’s Am. Compl. at 7.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 8(a)(2) directs that a “pleading that states a claim for relief must contain , , . a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed, R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). A plaintiff, however, must plead specific facts, not mere conclusory allegations, to avoid dismissal. See Schultea v. Wood, 47 F.3d 1427, 1431 (Sth Cir. 1995) (en banc); see also Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376, 378 (Sth Cir, 2002) (“fC]onclusory allegations or legal conclusions masquerading as factual conclusions will not suffice to prevent a motion to dismiss” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Rule 8 “demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me-accusation.” Ashcroft v. [gbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009), In screening Bradley’s case, the Court may rely on Bradley’s complaint and attached documents as well as “‘documents incorporated into the complaint by reference and matters of which a court may take judicial notice.” Benavides v. Harlingen Police Dep't, No. 1:24-cv-179, 2025 WL 1477011, at *3 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 2025) (quoting Dorsey v. Portfolio Equities, Ine., 540 F.3d 333, 338 (Sth Cir, 2008)); see also Fed. R. Evid. 201(f) advisory committee’s note (“[JJudicial notice may be taken at any stage of the proceeding.”).
Moreover courts have generally held that “there is no denial of access to courts if alternative means of assuring access to courts were available.” Williams v. Curtis, No, 3:16-CV- 151-D-BH, 2017 WL 979053, at *6 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 18, 2017), In addition, “to prevail on an access to courts claim, a [claimant] must demonstrate prejudice or harm by showing that his ability to pursue a ‘nonfrivolous,’ ‘arguable’ legal claim was hindered by the defendants’ actions.” Wilson v, Tex. Civ. Commitment Cent, Facility Dir., No. 5:20-CV-267-H-BQ, 2021 WL 2653528, at *3 (N.D. Tex. May If, 2021). In other words, Plaintiff ““‘must demonstrate that the lack of access has prevented him from filing or caused him to lose a pending case.’” /d. (quoting Foreman v. Bowles, No. 3:01-CV-2117-G, 2003 WL. 21730136, at *3 (N.D. Tex, Mar. 31, 2003)). “There is no constitutional violation when a [claimant] has time to submit legal documents in a court despite impediments caused by officials.” Russie v. Davis, No, 2:17-CV-225-2-BR, 2020 WL 6550502, at *4 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 5, 2020). “A civil rights claim cannot be based on ‘minor and short-lived impediments to access’ in the absence of actual prejudice.” Jd. (citing Chandler v. Baird, 926 F.2d 1057, 1063 (Sth Cir, 1991)). Having reviewed the allegations in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, the Court FINDS and CONCLUDES that Plaintiff has, as the very least, failed to state a claim for denial of access to the courts. While Bradley alleges that he has no alternative means to access the JP Court, Precinct 1, “to sufficiently plead an access-to-courts claim, even a non-prisoner[, such as Bradley,] must plead that ‘official acts... may allegedly have caused the loss ... of a meritorious case.” Sanders v. Rose, 576 F, App’x 91, 94 (3rd Cir. 2014) (quoting Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 416 (2002}). In this case, it is clear that any alleged acts by Defendants did not actually result in the loss of Bradley’s ability to file a meritorious case in JP Court, Precinct 1. To begin with, a search of JP Court, Precinct 1’s public court records, which this Court takes judicial notice of, shows that
Bradley, on September [1, 2025, successfully filed at least five pending cases in JP Court, Precinct One such suit filed by Bradley, case no. JP01-25-SC00017109, is against Capitol One Bank,” the same defendant that Bradley referenced in the exhibits attached to his Amended Complaint that he was allegedly not allowed to file suit against. The docket entry in this case in JP Court, Precinct | shows that the original petition was filed “IN PERSON/BY PLTF.” (See Ex, B.) Thus, Bradley has been allowed to file his case in JP Court, Precinct | in person. In addition, Bradley has failed to ailege in his Amended Complaint any facts indicating that the underlying claim he was trying to file (and has now successfully filed) against Capital One Bank in JP Court, Precinct | is meritorious or nonfrivolous. See, e.g., Wilson, 2021 WL 2653528, at *3 (stating that “to prevail on an access to courts claim a [claimant] must demonstrate prejudice by showing that his ability to pursue a nonfrivolous, arguable legal claim was hindered by the defendants’ actions”) (internal quotation marks omitted).) Consequently, the Court FINDS and CONCLUDES that Bradley has failed to state a valid claim upon which relief can be granted. Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, his pleadings are entitled to more lenient scrutiny
than pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Chhim v. Univ. of Tex. at Austin, 836 F.3d 467, 469 (5th Cir. 2016}. However, the Court FINDS and CONCLUDES that no amount of liberal construction of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint could result in a legally cognizable claim in this Court. Moreover, Plaintiff has already been given one opportunity to file a complaint that is not frivolous and states a claim upon which relief can be granted. Accordingly, the Court. RECOMMENDS
1 See Exhibit (*Ex.”) A, also available at https://portal- txtarrant.tylertech.cloud/PublicAccess/Search.aspx?1D=200 (last visited on September 24, 2025). 2 See Ex. B, also available at https://portal- txtarrant.tylertech.cloud/PublicAccess/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=5 945847 (last visited on September 24, 2025).
that this case be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT TO PROPOSED FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION AND CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO OBJECT Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), each party to this action has the right to serve and file specific written objections in the United States District Court to the United States Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation within fourteen (14) days after the party has been served with a copy of this document. The United States District Judge need only make a de novo determination of those portions of the United States Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation to which specific objection is timely made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1}. Failure to file, by the date stated above, a specific written objection to a proposed factual finding or legal conclusion will bar a party, except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice, from attacking on appeal any such proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the United States District Judge, See Douglass vy. United Services Auto Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (Sth Cir. 1996) (en banc), modified by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections to 14 days). ORDER Under 28 U.S.C. § 636, it is hereby ORDERED that each party is granted until October 9, 2025, to serve and file written objections to the United States Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation, It is further ORDERED that if objections are filed and the opposing party chooses to file a response, the response shall be filed within seven (7) days of the filing date of the objections.
It is further ORDERED that the above-styled and numbered action, previously referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for findings, conclusions, and recommendation, be and hereby is returned to the docket of the United States District Judge. SIGNED September 25, 2025, peg
TEBPRZY L. CURETON FED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
cree i ei ities eR SSE AG LS Rees 6 SAAN Oe AL NM NUR ANE AAR AY □□□ RR OO UnGLnTatn eRe GbinWann Gnpwed Si □□ □□ TS —“‘“_O™O_OCO — er rr SE cra Mears Ee Paee Corel | stokes eT ESUETPUUD Seon OU RScceec hence TUT: RUE: ee ret □□ SCR ASCO □□□ a □□ Record Count: § Search By: Party Party Search Mode: Name Last Name: Bradley First Name: Steven AIL A Sort Gy: FiledDate Case Number Citation Number Style/Defendant info Filed/Location Type/Status Charga[s} JPO1-25-8C00017 407 STEVEN BRADLEY vs. 09/41/2025 Small Claims DISCOVERY BANKS JPNo. 4 Filed DISCOVER CARD JPO1-25-SC00017 408 STEVEN BRADLEY vs, 09/51/2028 Small Claims EXPERIAN INFORMATION JPNo. 1 Filed SOLUTIONS, INC. JPG1-25-SC00017109 STEVEN BRADLEY ys. 09/11/2025 Small Claims CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), JP-No. 4 Filed NA 10 STEVEN BRADLEY vs. MIKE 00/11/2025 Smali Claims CARLSON MOTOR COMPANY JP No. 1 Filed JPO1-25-SCOO017411 STEVEN BRADLEY vs. O9/41s2025. Smalt Ciaims JEFFERSON CAPITAL JP No. 4 Filed SYSTEMS, LUC
REGISTER OF ACTIONS Cast No. JPOE-28-SCOBULT HOD STEVEN BRADLEY vs. CAPITAL ONE BANK {USA}, NLA. § Case Type: Small Claims § Date Filed: O8/11/2025 § Location: JP No. 4 § § es a Pe Er RAR er a Lead Altornays Defendant CAPITAL ONE BANK {USA}, N.A. 217 E. 7TH STREET SUITE 620 AUSTIN, TX 78704 Plaintiff BRADLEY, STEVEN 7108 ASHWORTH DR. Nosh Richland Hills, TX 76132
OTHER EVENTS AND HEARINGS 09/11/2025] Original Petition Filed (OCA Gpening} IN PERSONATY PLTFAKE/MLN 09/11/2025] SMALL CLAIM CERTIFIED MAIL/TK#94890090002760238914859/SERVE REGISTER AGENT: CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY “MLN. CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), NLA. Unserved
BRADLEY, STEVEN Total Financial Assessment Fi Payments and Credits □□□ Balance Oue as of 09/24/2025 0.€ Transaction Assessment 54.C 09/11/2025] Transaction Assessment 172 09/11/2025] Counter Payment Receipt # JP1-2025-06742 BRAOLEY, STEVEN (712