Opinion
No. 3-04-CV-1965-B.
October 1, 2004
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This case has been referred to the United States magistrate judge 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 prisoner civil rights action brought by Plaintiff Donald Oreste Royale, an inmate in the TDCJ-ID, against Hunt County, Texas, various prosecutors and court officials, and his former attorney. On September 8, 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 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 with the district clerk on September 24, 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 pled guilty to aggravated robbery, a first degree felony under Texas law. The trial court deferred an adjudication of guilt and placed plaintiff on community supervision for 10 years. As a condition of his probation, plaintiff was required to abstain from using illicit or habit-forming drugs unless prescribed by a licenced medical practitioner. Plaintiff subsequently violated the terms of his probation by using amphetamines. Following a hearing, the trial court found plaintiff guilty of the underlying offense, revoked his community supervision, and sentenced him to 25 years confinement.Plaintiff now sues defendants for conspiring "to defraud a Texas courtroom" during his revocation hearing. More particularly, plaintiff accuses defendants of falsifying evidence and engaging in other acts of misconduct. By this suit, plaintiff seeks unspecified money damages and injunctive relief.
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); Henson-El 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.
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, 487, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 2372, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). The critical inquiry is whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff 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. 2000).
Plaintiff alleges that defendants conspired to violate his civil rights by falsifying evidence and engaging in "criminal behavior" during his probation revocation hearing. Such a claim necessarily implies the invalidity of plaintiff's conviction. Plaintiff acknowledges that no state court or federal habeas court has ever determined that the terms of his confinement are invalid. ( See Spears Quest. #1 2). Therefore, plaintiff is precluded from suing for money damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Heck, 114 S.Ct. at 2372; Krueger v. Reimer, 66 F.3d 75, 76 (5th Cir. 1995).
To the extent plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, his complaint must be construed as an application for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Jackson v. Torres, 720 F.2d 877, 879 (5th Cir. 1983); Johnson v. Hardy, 601 F.2d 172, 174 (5th Cir. 1979). However, plaintiff has sought federal habeas relief on the same ground in a separate action. Royale v. Dretke, No. 3-04-CV-1448-K (N.D. Tex., filed Jul. 6, 2004). That case remains pending.