Opinion
Civil Action 4:22-cv-00929
05-06-2022
IRY JAMES WILLIAMS, Reg. #76503-080 Plaintiff, v. ANDREW PEYKOFF SR and ANDREW PEYKOFF II, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION
Hon. Charles Eskridge United States District Judge
The complaint by Plaintiff Iry James Williams is dismissed as frivolous. Dkt 1. His constructive motion for status is denied. Dkt 31. .
1. Background
Williams is an inmate of the Miami Federal Detention Center. He proceeds here pro se and has obtained permission to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt 7.
At the time of filing, he was confined at FCI Pollack in Pollack, Louisiana. He initially brought suit in October 2020 in the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division. That court also severed and transferred claims against two defendants to this Court in March 2022. Dkt 34. He sued Andrew Peykoff Sr (as founder and Chairman of Niagara Botthng LLC) and Andrew Peykoff II (President and CEO of Niagara Botthng LLC). Williams himself identifies a last name of “Peykos, ” but the Niagara Botthng website shows the correct spelling is “Peykoff.”
Williams asserts that he observed contaminants in bottled water he purchased in March 2020. He asserts that the contaminated bottled water caused injury to his back, requiring him to use a walker. He seeks unspecified compensatory damages.
2. Legal standard
The complaint by Williams is construed liberally because he proceeds pro se. Coleman v United, States, 912 F.3d 824, 828 (5th Cir 2019), citing Erickson v Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). But a federal court has the authority to dismiss an action at any time in which the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis if the court determines that the action is frivolous or malicious. 28 USC § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. See Denton v Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992), quoting Neitzke v Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Richardson v Spurlock, 260 F.3d 495, 498 (5th Cir 2001), citing 28 USC § 1915(e)(2). A claim is factually frivolous when “the facts alleged are ‘fantastic or delusional scenarios' or the legal theory upon which a complaint relies is ‘indisputably meritless.'” Harris v Hegmann, 198 F.3d 153, 156 (5th Cir 1999); see also Denton v Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992).
A complaint lacks an arguable basis in law “if it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, such as if the complaint alleges the violation of a legal interest which clearly does not exist.” Davis v Scott, 157 F.3d 1003, 1005 (5th Cir 1998), quoting McCormick v Stalder, 105 F.3d 1059, 1061 (5th Cir 1997). A cause of action under 42 USC § 1983 requires a showing of a deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and that the deprivation was caused by someone acting under color of state law. Baker v McCollan, 443 U.S. 137 (1979).
3. Analysis
Williams's claims lack an arguable basis in law. First, Defendants here are private actors. Actions of private actors don't constitute state action under 42 USC § 1983. See Briscoe v LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 329 (1983). Second, Williams pleads nothing invoking the protections of the Due Process Clause. Generally speaking, the Due Process Clause does confer protection to the general public against unwarranted governmental interference. But it doesn't confer an entitlement to governmental aid as may be necessary to realize the advantages of liberty guaranteed by the Clause. Walton v Alexander, 44 F.3d 1297, 1302 (5th Cir 1995)(en banc). Nor does it require the State to offer advance protection of the Efe, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors. Piotrowski v City of Houston, 51 F.3d 512, 515 (5th Cir 1995), citing DeShaney v Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189, 195 (1989).
Williams's claims will be dismissed as lacking an arguable basis in law.
4. Conclusion
The complaint filed by Iry James Williams is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as lacking an arguable basis in law under 28 USC § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Dkt 1. This dismissal counts as a strike under 28 USC § 1915(g).
Williams filed a motion to proceed in which he seeks the status of his civil action in the Eastern District in CivE Action Number 6:20-cv-0566. That is DENIED. Dkt 31.
Any other pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.
The Clerk of Court will send a copy of this Order to:
Miami Federal Detention Center
33 NE 4th St.
Miami, FL 33132;
and
Manager of the Three-Strikes List
Southern District of Texas
ThreeStrikes@txs.uscourts.gov.
SO ORDERED.