Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Richardson v. Jenkins

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division

March 17, 2017

SCOTT DAMON RICHARDSON, Plaintiff,
v.
CLAY JENKINS, ET AL., Defendants.

          FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          PAUL D. STICKNEY, 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:

         I. Background

         Plaintiff filed this complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986 and 1988. He is proceeding pro se, and the Court has granted him leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Defendants are Dallas County Judge Clay Jenkins, Dallas County, and unknown defendants. The Court has not issued process pending judicial screening.

         Petitioner alleges that on February 14, 2017, he sent a request for information to Dallas County officials to obtain, "the records of ALL Police Officers that have been placed on the BRADY LIST, aka DO NOT SUPPORT LIST, or any other name that refers to the policy of training and compliance with said policy." (Compl. at 5.) He asserts defendants' reply was nonresponsive and that no information was produced. He claims Defendant Jenkins allowed the suppression of this information and ensured or condoned insufficient training by prosecutors and that Jenkins "embraced lawless violence as an engine of plunder, ensuring abuse of Police power, jeopardizing the community standard, likewise created tortuous (sic) liability for the County, a hazard to the people He sworn (sic) to protect and serve, per His fiduciary duties." (Id.)

         The Court takes notice that, as used in Petitioner's complaint, Brady refers to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), under which a constitutional violation may accrue if material evidence favorable to a defendant is suppressed by the state.

         II. Screening

         A district court may summarily dismiss a complaint filed in forma pauperis, such as the complaint filed by Plaintiff, if the Court at any time determines that the action

(I) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or
(iii) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

28U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b).

         An action is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); see also Brewster v. Dretke, 587 F.3d 764, 767 (5th Cir. 2009) ("A claim may be dismissed as frivolous if it does not have an arguable basis in fact or law."). A complaint is without an arguable basis in law if it is grounded upon an untenable, discredited, or indisputably meritless legal theory, including alleged violations of a legal interest that clearly does not exist. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 326-27; Berry v. Brady, 192 F.3d 504, 507 (5th Cir. 1999).

         The Court must "accept all well-pleaded facts as true, viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig.,495 F.3d 191, 205-06 (5th Cir. 2007). To state a claim upon which relief may be granted, a plaintiff must plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face, " Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007), and must plead those facts with enough specificity "to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, " id. at 555. "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). "The plausibility standard is not akin to a 'probability requirement, ' but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Id. "A claim for relief is implausible on its face when 'the well-pleaded ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.