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.

Chase v. Corporate United States

United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division

April 4, 2019

AKILLEON LARAN CHASE, TDCJ-CID #01871753 Plaintiff,
v.
CORPORATE UNITED STATES, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND OPINION

          VANESSA D. GILMORE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Akilleon 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.

         The threshold issue is whether Chase's claims should be dismissed as frivolous.

         I. Chase's Allegations

         Chase 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 Institutions Division.

         Chase seeks $ 100, 000, 000, 000.00 in compensatory damages. He further seeks 10, 000 acres in land and his immediate release from custody.

         II. Standard of Review

         A 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).

         Chase 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 circumstances.

         Chase's 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.

         In this 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.

         Under 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 question.").

         Chase's 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).

         Alternatively, 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 convicted, ...


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.