Opinion
No. 2:04-CV-0283.
April 14, 2005
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff CALIP JOSEPH FARMER, acting pro se and while a prisoner confined in the Randall County Jail, has filed suit pursuant to Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983 complaining against the above-referenced defendants and has been granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis.
Plaintiff complains that the defendants have denied him his First Amendment right of access to courts by failing to provide him with access to legal materials, that is, caselaw and a copy of Senate Bill #1067. Plaintiff requests that the enhancement in his criminal conviction for case no. 15,792-C be quashed and that he be awarded "the amount of funds [he] would have made for the past eleven months."
JUDICIAL REVIEW
When a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity, the Court must evaluate the complaint and dismiss it without service of process, Ali v. Higgs, 892 F.2d 438, 440 (5th Cir. 1990), if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 1915A; 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2). The same standards will support dismissal of a suit brought under any federal law by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility, where such suit concerns prison conditions. 42 U.S.C. 1997e(c)(1). A Spears hearing need not be conducted for every pro se complaint. Wilson v. Barrientos, 926 F.2d 480, 483 n. 4 (5th Cir. 1991).The Magistrate Judge has reviewed plaintiff's pleadings and has viewed the facts alleged by plaintiff to determine if his claims present grounds for dismissal or should proceed to answer by defendants.
THE LAW AND ANALYSIS
The Court notes that, two weeks after filing suit, plaintiff was transferred to the Texas prison system and is currently housed at the Rufe Jordan Unit. Plaintiff has not indicated whether he continued to suffer denial or limitation of his access to the desired legal materials after his transfer.
Plaintiff requests that the enhancement in his criminal conviction be "quashed;" however, the Younger abstention doctrine counsels against such interference by a federal court in a pending state judicial proceeding, the appeal of plaintiff's criminal conviction. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746 (1971). Plaintiff has not shown there is not an adequate opportunity in his state proceedings to raise the constitutional challenge he asserts here and does not show he is threatened with any injury other than that incidental to every criminal proceeding brought lawfully and in good faith. Consequently, the Court should abstain from interference in the criminal proceedings presently occurring in the state appellate court.
If plaintiff's appeal has been resolved since the filing of this suit, plaintiff has not so informed the Court; however, any challenge to the enhancement of his sentence is a challenge to the length of confinement and must first be resolved favorably to plaintiff. Only then, could any civil rights claim spring into existence and, until such time, plaintiff's challenge to the enhancement and request for damages flowing from it is barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 2372, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994).
The Heck court, driven by concerns over the relationship between habeas corpus claims and civil rights claims, broadly held that any section 1983 claim which attacks the unconstitutionality of a conviction (or imprisonment, as the case may be) does not accrue until that conviction (or sentence) has been "reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus." Wells v. Bonner, 45 F.3d 90, 94 (5th Cir. 1995) (quoting Heck v. Humphrey, S.Ct. at 2372).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above and pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, sections 1915A and 1915(e)(2), as well as Title 42, United States Code, section 1997e(c)(1), it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge to the United States District Judge that the Civil Rights Complaint filed pursuant to Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983, by plaintiff CALIP JOSEPH FARMER be DISMISSED UNDER THE YOUNGER ABSTENTION DOCTRINE AND WITH PREJUDICE TO BEING ASSERTED AGAIN UNTIL THE HECK CONDITIONS ARE MET. JOHNSON V. McELVEEN, 101 F.3D 423, 424 (5TH CIR. 1996).
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.