United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Tyler Division
BRUCE D. WILLIAMS #746494
LORIE DAVIS, ET AL.
MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND ENTERING FINAL
Clark, United States District Judge
Plaintiff Bruce Williams, a prisoner of the Texas Department
of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit
complaining of alleged deprivations of his constitutional
rights with regard to the legality of his confinement. This
Court referred the case to the United States Magistrate Judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and (3) and the Amended
Order for the Adoption of Local Rules for the Assignment of
Duties to United States Magistrate Judges. The named
Defendants are: TDCJ-CID Director Lorie Davis; certified
nurse aide Amanda Collins; Warden Kevin Wheat; Major Frank
Facio; disciplinary hearing officer Captain Richard
Rodenbeck; substitute counsel Ms. Reed; shift supervisor Lt.
Allen; the Director of the University of Texas Medical Branch
Hospital in Galveston; unit grievance investigator A. Dugger;
Step Two grievance investigator Linda Richey; and Anderson
County District Attorney Doug Lowe.
asserts that on June 10, 2012, Collins forced him by threats
to engage in unwanted sexual intercourse. He furnishes
documentation showing his allegations against Collins were
sustained through an investigation conducted by the Safe
Prisons / Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) program and
Collins was charged with improper sexual contact, although
she was allowed to enter a plea of guilty to the offense of
possession of a prohibited substance in a correctional
facility. Although Williams received a disciplinary case for
establishing an inappropriate relationship with Collins, the
case was overturned.
the third lawsuit which Williams has filed concerning the
same incident. The first of these was styled Williams v.
Williams, , civil action no. 6:14cv516. On June 4, 2014,
the Court issued a Report recommending that the lawsuit be
dismissed as barred by the three-strikes provision of 28
U.S.C. §1915(g). In response to the Report, Williams
filed two motions for extensions of time to pay the fee,
which were granted, but then filed a motion asking that the
lawsuit be voluntarily dismissed. This motion was granted and
the lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice on February 2,
a month earlier, on January 7, 2015, Williams filed a second
lawsuit raising the same claims, paying the full filing fee.
This lawsuit was styled Williams v. Williams, ,
civil action no. 6:15cv7. On January 14, 2015, the Court
issued a Report recommending that the lawsuit be dismissed
with prejudice as malicious because it duplicated cause no.
6:14cv516. Williams filed objections but these were overruled
and the lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice on February 9,
2015. Some two years later, on February 10,
2017, Williams signed the present lawsuit.
The Report of the Magistrate Judge
review of the pleadings, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report
recommending that the lawsuit be dismissed. After recounting
the procedural history of the case, the Magistrate Judge
stated that Williams had three strikes and had not paid the
filing fee, nor did he show that he was in imminent danger of
serious physical injury as of the time of the filing of the
Williams requested that the filing fee he paid in cause no.
6:15cv7 be applied to the present case, the Magistrate Judge
determined that no statutory authority existed for doing so.
Fifth Circuit has held that the obligation to pay the full
filing fee arises at the moment the lawsuit is filed. Thus,
the Magistrate Judge explained that the fee paid in cause no.
6:15cv7 covered that case, and that case has become final.
The fee paid in cause no. 6:15cv7 cannot be credited to a new
lawsuit filed over two years later. Thus, the Magistrate
Judge reasoned that Williams' present lawsuit was barred
were it not so barred, the Magistrate Judge went on to state
that Williams' second lawsuit concerning this same
subject matter was dismissed with prejudice. The Fifth
Circuit has held that dismissal of an action with prejudice
serves as a complete adjudication of the issues presented by
the pleadings and bars further action between the parties.
the Magistrate Judge determined that Williams' present
lawsuit is barred by the statute of limitations. Williams was
aware of the incident at the time it occurred and was
notified by letter dated March 17, 2014, that Collins had
been convicted. Assuming the limitations period began to run
at the time of the letter, it would have expired two years
later, on March 17, 2016.
regard, the Magistrate Judge stated that Williams' first
lawsuit was dismissed voluntarily and therefore did not toll
the limitations period. The second lawsuit was dismissed with
prejudice and bars refiling of the lawsuit and thus cannot
toll the limitations period. Nonetheless, the Magistrate
Judge concluded that even if Williams' second lawsuit did
toll the limitations period, and the entire time that case
was pending is not counted, a period in excess of two years
elapsed between March 17, 2014 and the filing of the present
lawsuit. Williams did not explain the passage of this amount
of time nor show ...