Opinion
No. 3:04-CV-716-G.
February 16, 2005
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and an order of the District Court, this case has been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge. The findings, conclusions and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge follow:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS I. Nature of the Case:
Plaintiff brings this complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. II. Parties:
Plaintiff was confined in the Dallas County Jail when he filed this complaint. Defendants are former Sheriff Jim Bowles, Jack Madera/Mid — America Services, Inc., Officer Cole, Officer Weant, Officer Teurman and the Inmate Grievance Committee members.
III. Statement of the Case:
Plaintiff states Defendants have denied him access to the courts by denying him sufficient supplies, by limiting his time in the law library and by failing to provide an adequate law library. He also states the jail Grievance Committee members have failed to follow state law in ruling on his grievances.
IV. Preliminary Screening
Plaintiff's complaint is subject to preliminary screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That section provides in pertinent part:
The court shall review . . . as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity [and] [o]n review, the court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint (1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from suit.28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and (b); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Both sections 1915A(b) and 1915(e)(2)(B) provide for sua sponte dismissal if the Court finds the complaint is "frivolous" or that it "fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." A complaint is frivolous if it "lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The Court finds Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed as frivolous.
A. Access to Courts
To prevail on a claimed denial of access to courts, a plaintiff must show that he lost an actionable claim or was prevented from presenting such a claim because of the alleged denial. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 356 (1996); Eason v. Thaler, 73 F.3d 1322, 1328 (5th Cir. 1996) (finding plaintiff must demonstrate his position as a litigant was prejudiced as a direct result of the denial of access). The "injury requirement is not satisfied by just any type of frustrated legal claim." Lewis, 518 U.S. at 354. Rather, plaintiff must show that the lack of access has prevented him from filing or caused him to lose a pending case that attacks either his conviction or seeks to "vindicate `basic constitutional rights'" in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id. (quoting Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 579 (1974)). The right of access to the courts is not a "freestanding right," it is necessary that plaintiff demonstrate actual injury resulting from the alleged denial of access. Id. at 351.
In this case, Plaintiff states he has been unable to file a federal habeas corpus petition. ( See Answer No. 1, December 3, 2004, Response to Questionnaire). On December 13, 2004, the Court sent Plaintiff a Questionnaire seeking further information about this claim. On December 22, 2004, Plaintiff responded that his conviction occurred on August 25, 2004. ( See Answer No. 1, December 22, 2004, Response to Questionnaire). Plaintiff has failed to show that he has missed any court deadlines or statutes of limitations in filing a federal habeas corpus petition challenging this conviction. Further, the Court notes Plaintiff did manage to file the instant lawsuit while incarcerated in the Dallas County Jail. Plaintiff has therefore failed to establish the requisite prejudice for his denial of access to courts claim. His claim should be denied.
After filing this complaint, Plaintiff was transferred to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.
B. Grievances
Plaintiff also sues the Grievance Committee for failing to follow state law in denying his grievances. An inmate does not have a constitutional entitlement to an adequate grievance procedure. See Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422, 1430-31 (7th Cir. 1996) (finding inmates do not have a constitutional right to an adequate grievance procedure); Jenkins v. Henslee, No. 3:01-CV-1996-R, 2002 WL 432948, *2 (N.D. Tex. March 15, 2002) (same); Dickey v. Snead, No. 3:04-CV-2410-G, 2004 WL 2607966 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 8, 2004) (same). Plaintiff's grievance claims should therefore be denied.
RECOMMENDATION
The Court recommends that Plaintiff's claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b).