United States District Court, W.D. Texas, Austin Division
JARED SNIDER § Travis County No. 1906387
AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.
HONORABLE LEE YEAKEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
W. AUSTIN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Magistrate Judge submits this Report and Recommendation to
the District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b) and
Rule 1(f) of Appendix C of the Local Court. Before the Court
are Plaintiff's complaint, more definite statement, and
supplements. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has been granted
leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
OF THE CASE
time he filed his complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983, Plaintiff was confined in the Travis County Jail.
Plaintiff alleges Austin Police Officers Gallenkamp and
Hanson arrested him for something he did not do. Plaintiff
sues the Austin Police Department, Officer Gallenkamp, and
Officer Hanson. Plaintiff requests the Court to dismiss the
pending criminal charges against him and to award him an
unspecified amount of monetary damages.
review of Plaintiff's complaint, the Court ordered
Plaintiff to file a more definite statement. Plaintiff
clarifies he is currently incarcerated on a pending criminal
charge of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Plaintiff
asserts Officer Gallenkamp and Hanson questioned and searched
him at the scene of the crime. Plaintiff maintains he was not
found to be in possession of a knife. Plaintiff states he was
the person who called 911, and had the officers reviewed the
video footage from the Halo cameras, they would have
discovered the alleged victim was the perpetrator of the
Standard Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)
forma pauperis proceeding may be dismissed sua sponte under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) if the court determines the
complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted or seeks monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune from suit. A dismissal for
frivolousness or maliciousness may occur at any time, before
or after service of process and before or after the
defendant's answer. Green v. McKaskle, 788 F.2d
1116, 1119 (5th Cir. 1986).
reviewing a plaintiff's complaint, the court must
construe plaintiff's allegations as liberally as
possible. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972).
However, the petitioner's pro se status does not offer
him “an impenetrable shield, for one acting pro se has
no license to harass others, clog the judicial machinery with
meritless litigation and abuse already overloaded court
dockets.” Farguson v. MBank Houston, N.A., 808
F.2d 358, 359 (5th Cir. 1986).
Austin Police Department
Austin Police Department is not a legal entity capable of
being sued. See Guidry v. Jefferson County Detention
Center, 868 F.Supp. 189, 191 (E.D. Tex. 1994) (holding
that the Jefferson County Detention Center is not a legal
entity subject to suit); Darby v. Pasadena Police
Dep't, 939 F.2d 311 (5th Cir. 1991) (holding that
police and sheriff's departments are governmental
subdivisions without capacity for independent legal action).
Therefore, Plaintiff's claims against the Austin Police
Department should be dismissed.
Plaintiff's complaint liberally, Plaintiff may be
asserting a Fourth Amendment claim against Officers