United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION
VANESSA D. GILMORE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Laran Chase, an inmate of the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice - Correctional Institutions Division, sued in March
2019, alleging civil rights violations resulting from a
denial of due process and involuntary servitude. Chase has
neither paid the $350.00 filing fee nor sought leave to
proceed as a pauper. From his litigation history, the Court
presumes that he seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Chase, proceeding pro se, sues Corporate United States and
the Harris County Jail.
threshold issue is whether Chase's claims should be
dismissed as frivolous.
asserts that he is the descendent of Arthur Lee Chase, Sr.,
Olivia Chase, and Patricia Gay Reece. Chase states that he is
one hundred percent Native American. He complains that the
Harris County Jail ("HCJ") has illegally used his
incorporated name, "Akilleon Laran Chase," in
conjunction with SPN Number 2489022. Chase states that he is
acting as a secured party creditor. He further complains that
he is being subjected to slavery by being confined in the
Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Correctional
seeks $ 100, 000, 000, 000.00 in compensatory damages. He
further seeks 10, 000 acres in land and his immediate release
Standard of Review
federal court has the authority to dismiss an action in which
the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis before service
if the court determines that the action is frivolous or
malicious. 28 U.S.C. § 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);
Richardson v. Spurlock, 260 F.3d 495, 498 (5th Cir.
2001) (citing Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193
(5th Cir. 1997)). "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 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).
does not present a logical set of facts to support any claim
for relief. Instead, his complaint that the Harris County
Jail and TDCJ are illegally using his incorporated name
presents fantastic allegations which are fanciful and
delusional in nature. Dismissal is warranted under these
claims are also barred by the doctrine announced in Heck
v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87(1994). Heck
requires dismissal of a complaint brought pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983, when the civil rights action, if
successful, would necessarily imply the invalidity of a
plaintiffs conviction or sentence, unless the plaintiff
demonstrates that the conviction or sentence has been
reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order,
declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such
a determination, or called into question by a federal
court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2254.
instance, the crux of Chase's complaint is that he was
improperly charged and convicted of aggravated robbery. The
complaint challenges the validity of his convictions and
sentences. A ruling granting Chase the relief which he seeks
would necessarily implicate the validity of his convictions
in Cause Numbers 133872301010 and 133872201010 and inevitably
affect the duration of his confinement.
Heck, Chase must demonstrate that his convictions
and sentences have been reversed, invalidated, or expunged
prior to bringing an action under § 1983. Heck,
512 U.S. at 486-87. Chase cannot make such showing. He has
not alleged that his convictions in Cause Numbers
133872301010 and 133872201010 have been reversed, invalidated
or otherwise expunged. Until Chase receives a ruling
declaring his sentences invalid, no action will accrue under
§ 1983. Id. at 488-89; Randell v.
Johnson, 227 F.3d 300, 301 (5th Cir. 2000), cert,
denied, 121 S.Ct. 1601 (2001) ("Because [plaintiff]
is seeking damages pursuant to § 1983 for
unconstitutional imprisonment and he has not satisfied the
favorable termination requirement of Heck, he is
barred from any recovery. . . ."). Chase's claims
challenging his convictions for aggravated robbery are
"legally frivolous" within the meaning of sections
1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). Hamilton v. Lyons, 74 F.3d
99, 102-103 (5th Cir. 1996)("A § 1983 claim which
falls under the rule in Heck is legally frivolous
unless the conviction or sentence at issue has been reversed,
expunged, invalidated, or otherwise called into
claims are dismissed with prejudice to them being reasserted
when the Heck conditions are met. See Clarke v.
Stalder, 154 F.3d 186, 191 (5th Cir. 1998); Johnson
v. McElveen, 101 F.3d 423, 424 (5th Cir. 1996).
the Court finds that Chase's allegation of involuntary
servitude is frivolous. Section One of the Thirteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution reads as follows:
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as
punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly