Opinion
Civil Action 4:20-cv-1298-O
06-10-2021
EMORY LAWRENCE ALEXANDER, TDCJ No. 01977356, Plaintiff, v. EVELYN CASTRO, Senior Warden, TDCJ-McConnell Unit, et al., Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL UNDER 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(B) and 1915(e)(2)(B)
REED O'CONNER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This case is before the Court for review of pro-se inmate/plaintiff Emory Lawrence Alexander's (“Alexander”) case under the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B). Having reviewed the complaint, the Court finds that this action must be DISMISSED under authority of these provisions.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Alexander, an inmate at the TDCJ McConnell Unit in Beeville, Texas, initiated this civil case by the filing of a typed complaint. Compl. 1-6, ECF No.1. In that document, which is the operative pleading before the Court, Alexander listed three defendants in both an individual and official capacity: TDCJ-McConnell Unit Senior Warden Evelyn Castro; Wise County District Clerk Tracie Pippin; and Wise County District Attorney Gregory Preston Lowery. Compl. 2, ECF No. 1. As to these defendants, Alexander asserts that each has held him in a constructive bailment or peonage/debt bondage in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1994 and 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Id. More particularly, in a “Legal Claims” section of his complaint, Alexander writes:
The Texas Constitution Art. 1, Sec. 18, Imprisonment for Debt Prohibits the PLAINTIFF being placed in prison for liquidation of a debt and so does 42 U.S.C. 1994. The PLAINTIFF is being held in constructive bailment by trustee Evelyn Castro. The PLAINTIFF, Emory Lawrence Alexander is held in constructive bailment as a surety being forced to provide services as a surety to Emory Lawrence Alexander a cesti que trust created without PLAINTIFF'S knowledge or consent.DEFENDANT Gregory Preston Lowery District Attorney Wise County, is liable for indirectly holding PLAINTIFF in peonage constructive bailment as a trustee by failure to take action regarding adjustment of the account and discharge of PLAINTIFF'S suretyship obligation . . . DEFENDANT Tracie Pippen is liable for holding PLAINTIFF indirectly in peonage constructive bailment.
Compl. 3, ECF No. 1. Alexander seeks as relief an “equitable accounting and equitable subrogation . . . [and] common law remedies pursuant to unjust enrichment ‘Non-Assumpsit' and all remedies of common law and equity pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, 1994. Plaintiff requests the Court hold DEFENDANTS liable in Public capacities for ‘DECLARATORY RELIEF ONLY.'” Id. at 6.
II. LEGAL STANDARD OF REVIEW UNDER §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B)
Plaintiff Alexander is an inmate who has been permitted to proceed in forma pauperis. As a part of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires a district court to review a complaint from a prisoner seeking relief from a governmental entity, officer, or employee as soon as possible after docketing. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A(a). Because Alexander is proceeding in-forma-pauperis, his complaint is also subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Both § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A provide for sua sponte dismissal of the complaint or any portion thereof, if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b).
A complaint is frivolous when it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A claim lacks an arguable basis in law when it is “based on an indisputably meritless legal theory.” Id. at 327. A claim lacks an arguable basis in fact when it describes “fantastic or delusional scenarios.” Id. at 327-28. A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted when it fails to plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); accord Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim, plaintiffs must allege facts sufficient to “raise the right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Mere “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action” are insufficient to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Id.
III. ANALYSIS - Claims Denied as Frivolous
A review of Alexander's complaint shows that it is nonsensical and without merit. More particularly, another court in this district, confronting claims by another inmate at the TDCJ-McConnell Unit that he was entitled to “elect the remedies provided for under ‘42 U.S.C. § 1994 peonage 42 U.S.C. § 1998, ” recently held such claims to be “frivolous and without merit.” Williams v. Castro, No. 3:20-cv-1853-G(BT), 2021 WL 1944447, at *2 (N.D. Tex. May 7, 2021), rep. and rec. adopted, 2021 WL 1947603 (N.D. Tex. May 14, 2021). For the same reasons, this Court concludes that Alexander's claims in this suit are legally frivolous.
IV. CONCLUSION
It is therefore ORDERED that all Plaintiffs claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii).
SO ORDERED.