Opinion
NO. 3-04-CV-1429-P.
August 18, 2004
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This pro se prisoner civil rights action has been referred to the United States magistrate judge for initial screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and a standing order of reference from the district court. The findings and recommendation of the magistrate judge are as follow:
The Prison Litigation Reform Act provides, in relevant part, that:
[t]he court shall review, before docketing, if feasible or, in any event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
28 U.S.C. § 1915A-(a). The statute applies to any suit by a prisoner against certain government officials or entities regardless of whether the prisoner is proceeding in forma pauperis. See Martin v. Scott, 156 F.3d 578, 579 (5th Cir. 1998).
I.
Plaintiff Gary Wayne Ferguson, an inmate in the TDCJ-ID, has sued the City of Rowlett, Texas and various police officers, prosecutors, court officials, and private attorneys for conspiring with one another to violate his civil rights. On July 1, 2004, plaintiff filed a complaint with the district clerk and paid the statutory filing fee. Written interrogatories were then sent to plaintiff in order to obtain additional information about the factual basis of this suit. See Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179, 181 (5th Cir. 1985). Plaintiff filed his interrogatory answers on July 20, 2004. The court now determines that this case is frivolous and should be summarily dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
II.
Plaintiff alleges that his conviction and resulting incarceration for felony DWI were the result of a conspiracy perpetrated by defendants to cover-up his unlawful arrest and violate his civil rights. By this suit, plaintiff seeks actual and punitive damages in excess of $40 million.
A.
A district court may dismiss a complaint filed in forma pauperis if it concludes that the action is frivolous or malicious. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). An action is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 1831, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989); Henson-El v. Rogers, 923 F.2d 51, 53 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 2863 (1991). A complaint is without an arguable basis in law if it is grounded upon an untenable or discredited legal theory. Neitzke, 109 S.Ct. at 1831. A claim may be deemed to lack an arguable basis in fact only if it is based upon factual allegations that are clearly fanciful or delusional in nature. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 1733, 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992).
B.
A party may not maintain a civil rights action based on the legality of a prior criminal proceeding unless a state court or federal habeas court has determined that the terms of confinement are in fact invalid. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 2372, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). The critical inquiry is whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the civil action would "necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence." Id., 114 S.Ct. at 2372. If so, the claim is barred unless the conviction has been reversed or declared invalid. Id.; Hainze v. Richards, 207 F.3d 795, 798 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 121 S.Ct. 384 (2000). A false arrest claim implicates a criminal prosecution where the conviction is based on evidence discovered during the arrest. See Hudson v. Hughes, 98 F.3d 868, 872 (5th Cir. 1996); Wells v. Bonner, 45 F.3d 90, 95 (5th Cir. 1995).
Although his complaint is short on facts, it appears that the gravamen of plaintiff's civil suit involves an alleged conspiracy between the Rowlett police department and the Dallas County district attorney to manufacture a misleading videotape of his arrest and present false evidence to the jury at his DWI trial. Plaintiff also criticizes the state court judge for admitting this fabricated evidence and blames his court-appointed lawyers for not challenging the evidence at trial and on appeal. ( See Plf. Compl. at 4-4A). These claims plainly implicate the validity of plaintiff's conviction. Without the videotape and false evidence, plaintiff contends he would not have been convicted of DWI. Plaintiff further acknowledges that no state court or federal habeas court has ever determined that the terms of his confinement are invalid. ( Spears Quest. #2). Consequently, he cannot maintain a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff's conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. Ferguson v. State, No. 11-02-00345-CR (Tex.App.-Eastland, Jul. 25, 2003, no pet.). Two federal writs of habeas corpus challenging his DWI conviction were dismissed without prejudice. Ferguson v. Bowles, No. 3-03-CV-0918-N (N.D. Tex. Jul. 25, 2003); Ferguson v. Dretke, No. 3-04-CV-0032-G (N.D. Tex. Apr. 8, 2004).
RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff's complaint should be summarily dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).