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.

Eldred v. Prince

United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Texarkana Division

September 14, 2017

ZACK ELDRED JR.
v.
SHERIFF JAMES PRINCE, ET AL.

          ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT

          ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         The Plaintiff Zack Eldred Jr., proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 complaining of alleged violations of his constitutional rights. 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 Bowie County Sheriff James Prince, District Attorney Jerry Rochelle, defense attorney Jeff Harrelson, appellate counsel Kristian Young, and District Judge Bobby Lockhart.

         I. The Plaintiff's Claims

         Plaintiff was convicted of continuous sexual abuse of a child in cause no. 11F0762-102, receiving a sentence of life in prison. This conviction was affirmed by the Sixth Judicial District Court of Appeals on March 5, 2014. Eldred v. State, 431 S.W.3d 177, 190 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2014). Plaintiff filed a state habeas application contending his appellate counsel failed to inform him of the affirmance of his conviction. This habeas application was granted and Plaintiff was permitted to file an out of time petition for discretionary review. Plaintiff's petition for discretionary review was denied on August 24, 2016.

         In his federal civil rights complaint, Plaintiff asserts that by law a complete affidavit and jurat must be presented to the grand jury before any grand jury proceedings are undertaken. Docket No. 1. These affidavits must be signed by a magistrate, district attorney, and police official.

         According to Plaintiff, the indictment in his case, cause no. 11F0762-102, is void, faulty, defective, illegal, and unconstitutional because the Defendants failed to submit a complete affidavit and jurat to the grand jury. Docket No. 1. He claims his sentence, judgment, and conviction are illegal because they are based on the void indictment, in violation of his constitutional rights. Id. He asks for immediate release from prison, the setting aside of his sentence, judgment, and conviction, and monetary damages in the amount of $6, 000, 000. Id.

         Plaintiff also filed two motions for summary judgment, arguing the Defendants cannot produce a viable copy of the complaint, affidavit and jurat and there is no valid sentence, judgment or conviction because there was no valid affidavit, complaint or jurat, and thus no valid grand jury proceeding. Docket Nos. 3, 10. He asserts this renders the indictment void and the trial court could have never acquired jurisdiction. Docket No. 3.

         II. The Report of the Magistrate Judge

         After review of the pleadings, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report stating in order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions which would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a plaintiff under 42 U.S.C. §1983 must prove the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by an authorized state tribunal, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994); Clarke v. Stalder, 154 F.3d 186, 189 (5th Cir. 1998) (en banc). Because a judgment in Plaintiff's favor would necessarily call into question the validity of his conviction for continuous aggravated sexual assault of a minor, the Magistrate Judge determined Plaintiff must show this conviction has been overturned, expunged, or otherwise set aside before he can proceed in a civil rights lawsuit. Docket No. 13.

         The Magistrate Judge further stated Plaintiff's complaint cannot be construed as a habeas corpus application because Plaintiff has not exhausted his state remedies. Brown v. Anderson, civil action no. 3:16cv220, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70586, 2016 WL 3079801 (S.D.Miss., May 31, 2016) (declining to construe a civil rights lawsuit as a habeas corpus action because the plaintiff had not exhausted his state remedies), citing Sam v. Louisiana, 409 F.App'x 758, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 2019, 2011 WL 310377 (5th Cir., January 31, 2011).

         III. Plaintiff's Objections

         In his objections to the Report, Plaintiff argues his conviction cannot be set aside, expunged, or otherwise overturned because there is no complaint, affidavit, or jurat on file in state court. Docket No. 16. He asserts he has exhausted his state remedies by filing a motion in state court under Article 39.14 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Id. In response to this motion, the court clerk sent him copies of all of the documents on file in his case, but there was no complaint, affidavit, or jurat.

         Plaintiff states he then filed a “fundamental error of the court writ, ” but the state district court refused to answer it.[1] He contends this should automatically overturn his conviction because there is no complaint, affidavit, or jurat on file and the state district court never acquired jurisdiction.

         After requesting this Court to order the state district court to answer his “fundamental error of the Court writ, ” Plaintiff argues he has exhausted state remedies by writing to the State Bar of Texas asking for a copy of the CAAP form, which he states is a client assistance form sent to his defense counsel Jeff Harrelson so Harrelson would send Plaintiff a copy of the complaint, affidavit, and jurat in the case. Docket No. 17. He states ...


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.