Opinion
Civil Action No. 3:04-CV-443-D.
March 23, 2005
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On December 20, 2004, under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the District Court referred Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, and on January 6, 2005, the District Court referred Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment, for a recommendation for disposition of the motions. The findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge follow:
Background
Plaintiff filed this complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of his civil rights. Plaintiff alleges that two Dallas police officers: (1) created a forged search warrant for his house and a forged arrest warrant for him; (2) stole money from his house during the search; (3) planted cocaine in his house; and (4) submitted false and forged evidence to the district attorney's office. As a result of the officers' investigation, Plaintiff was convicted of possession with intent to deliver cocaine and was sentenced to twenty years confinement.
Plaintiff states that he saw Defendant Hill on television discussing fake drug cases against a number of Hispanics. Plaintiff states he wrote several letters to Defendant Hill informing Defendant of the officers' conduct in his case. Plaintiff states Defendant Hill failed to act or conduct an investigation of Plaintiff' allegations because Plaintiff is black.
Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant Hill to "obey the law" and file complaints against the officers in his criminal case. He also seeks to have Defendant dismiss Plaintiff's conviction and send Plaintiff all of the documents relating to his criminal case. Plaintiff states he does not seek money damages. See Plaintiff's March 1, 2005, Objections, p. 2.
Summary Judgment
Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings and the evidence show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Cattrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Melton v. Teachers Ins. Annuity Assoc. of Am., 114 F.3d 557, 559 (5th Cir. 1997). Once a properly supported motion for summary judgment is made, the adverse party must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986). There is a genuine issue of fact if the evidence would permit a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Society of Fin. Examiners v. Nat'l Ass'n of Certified Fraud Examiners, Inc., 41 F.3d 223, 226 (5th Cir. 1995). The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the non-movant's position is insufficient to preclude a grant of summary judgment. Stewart v. Murphy, 174 F.3d 530, 533 (5th Cir. 1999). According to Rule 56, whenever a motion for summary judgment is made, an adverse party "may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials in the adverse party's pleading, but the adverse party's response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.
Discussion
1. Mandamus relief
Although Plaintiff states he is seeking injunctive relief, he is actually seeking to compel Defendant Hill to investigate his allegations against the Dallas police officers, file complaints against the officers, and provide Plaintiff with documents related to his criminal case. Plaintiff filed another federal complaint seeking the same mandamus relief in Dupree v. Hill, No. 3:04-CV-2192-B (N.D. Tex. Oct. 8, 2004). That complaint was dismissed as frivolous. Likewise, in this case, federal courts have no authority to direct state courts or judicial officers in the performance of their official duties. See Moye v. Clerk, DeKalb County Superior Court, 474 F.2d 1275, 1276 (5th Cir. 1973), citing Lamar v. 118th Judicial District Court, 440 F.2d 383 (5th Cir. 1971); Bagley v. Francis, 2002 WL 31261040 at *1 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 7, 2002). This prohibition also applies to state prosecutors. Lewis v. Texas, 2001 WL 1075827 (5th Cir. Aug, 21, 2001). Plaintiff's claims should therefore be denied.
2. State law
Plaintiff states Defendant Hill failed to follow state law and procedures to investigate his claims. See Plaintiff's March 1, 2005, Objections, p. 2. Violations of state laws or procedures, without more, does not state a claim under § 1983. See e.g., Murray v. Mississippi Dept. Of Corrections, 911 F.2d 1167, 1168 (5th Cir. 1990); Ramirez v. Ahn, 843 F.2d 864, 867 (5th Cir. 1988). Additionally, Plaintiff has submitted no evidence that Defendant Hill did not investigate Plaintiff's claims because of Plaintiff's race.
3. Theft of property
To the extent that Plaintiff seeks redress for the alleged theft of his money by the officers, the United States Supreme Court has held that the intentional deprivation of property by state employees does not constitute a civil rights violation as long as the state provides a meaningful post-deprivation remedy. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984); accord Nickens v. Melton, 38 F.3d 183, 184-85 (5th Cir. 1994). The plaintiff bears the burden to establish that the state's postdeprivation remedy is inadequate. Myers v. Klevenhagen, 97 F.3d 91, 94-95 (5th Cir. 1996).
Under Texas law, Plaintiff can sue for conversion to remedy his alleged property loss. Murphy v. Collins, 26 F.3d 541, 543 (5th Cir. 1994). This state law cause of action would be sufficient to meet constitutional due process requirements. Id. at 543-44.
Plaintiff's summary judgment evidence falls far short of demonstrating the existence of a genuine issue of material fact with respect to his claims. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment should be denied. Defendant is entitled to summary judgment in his favor.
RECOMMENDATION
The Court recommends that Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment be denied and that Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment be granted.