Opinion
No. 3-04-CV-1630-B.
October 13, 2004
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This case 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:
I.
This is a pro se civil rights action brought by Plaintiff Shaun Dewayne Tucker, a former inmate at the Dallas County Jail, against the Dallas County Commissioners and Sheriff Jim Bowles. On July 27, 2004, plaintiff tendered a complaint to the district clerk and filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Because the information provided by plaintiff in his pauper's affidavit indicates that he lacks the funds necessary to prosecute this case, the court granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and allowed the complaint to be filed. Written interrogatories then were sent to plaintiff in order to obtain additional information about the factual basis of his suit. See Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179, 181 (5th Cir. 1985). Plaintiff filed his interrogatory answers with the district clerk on October 7, 2004. The court now determines that this action should be summarily dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Plaintiff was transferred to the Hutchins State Jail after this suit was filed.
II.
Plaintiff challenges a Dallas County Jail policy that segregates homosexual inmates from the general jail population, thereby depriving such inmates access to rehabilitation programs, computer classes, and the opportunity to attend religious services. By this suit, plaintiff asks this court to institute new policies "to accomadate [sic] this particular part of the jail population[.]" (Plf. Compl. at 4, ¶ VI). No other relief is sought.
A.
A district court may summarily dismiss a complaint filed in forma pauperis if it concludes that the action:
(1) is frivolous or malicious;
(2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or
(3) seeks money relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 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, 1831-32, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989); HensonEl v. Rogers, 923 F.2d 51, 53 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 2863 (1991). A complaint fails to state a claim "if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations." Hishon v. King Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73, 104 S.Ct. 2229, 2232, 81 L.Ed.2d 59 (1984). The court must assume that the facts set forth in the complaint are true. See Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 164, 113 S.Ct. 1160, 1161, 122 L.Ed.2d 517 (1993). However, dismissal is proper where "even the most sympathetic reading of [the] pleadings uncovers no theory and no facts that would subject the present defendants to liability." Jacquez v. Procunier, 801 F.2d 789, 791-92 (5th Cir. 1986).
B.
Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The court initially observes that there is no federal constitutional right to participate in rehabilitation or educational programs while in state custody. See Beck v. Lynaugh, 842 F.2d 759, 762 (5th Cir. 1988). Although plaintiff does have a First Amendment right to attend religious services, see id. at 761, he seeks only injunctive relief to remedy that alleged constitutional deprivation. However, plaintiff is no longer incarcerated in the Dallas County Jail. This moots his claim for injunctive relief. See Cooper v. Sheriff of Lubbock County, 929 F.2d 1078, 1084 (5th Cir. 1991) (transfer or release from confinement renders claim for injunctive relief moot); Beck, 842 F.2d at 762 (same).
RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff's complaint should be summarily dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).