United States District Court, W.D. Texas, Austin Division
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 original and amended complaints.
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has been granted leave to
proceed in forma pauperis.
OF THE CASE
time he filed his original complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, Plaintiff was confined in the Travis County
Correctional Complex. According to Plaintiff, he was arrested
by Austin Police Department officers on April 12, 2019.
Plaintiff alleges he has been treated unlawfully by the
Travis County Correctional Complex and the Austin Police
Department. He seeks an unspecified amount of monetary
damages for “infringing on [his] daily life.”
review of Plaintiff's complaint, Plaintiff was advised
neither the Travis County Correctional Complex nor the Austin
Police Department was an entity capable of being sued.
Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended complaint, naming
defendants capable of being sued. The Court ordered Plaintiff
to state exactly what each defendant either did or failed to
do while acting under color of state law that violated
Plaintiff's constitutional rights. On June 6, 2019, the
Court received Plaintiff's purported amended complaint.
However, Plaintiff's amended complaint is nonsensical and
appears to be an attempt to satisfy his outstanding student
loan balance with a “contract/bond in the amount of 100
million” dollars. Plaintiff also did not amend any of
the parties he wished to sue. He did, however, add that he is
seeking punitive damages.
17, 2019, the Court received a subsequent pleading that also
appears to be an amended complaint. This complaint is
directed to the Federal Claims Court. In the amended
complaint Plaintiff names as defendants the United States,
Major Pena, Chief of Police Brian Manley, and Secretary of
Education Betsy DeVos.
Plaintiff is a Travis County detainee, he claims federal
officials violated his constitutional rights. Plaintiff
additionally claims employees of the Austin Police Department
and the Travis County Correctional Complex are holding him
against his will without fair representation. even though
Plaintiff admits he is represented by counsel in his pending
state criminal cases. Plaintiff seeks “[e]ither
compensation, debt dissolve, or immunity from the pilot
program, or secure party access to U.S. Treasury Account from
non profit secret society, lodges, churches, U.S. Department
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). When 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).
Defendants Pena and Manley
1983 provides a cause of action to individuals whose federal
rights have been violated by those acting under color of
state law. Doe v. Dall. Indep. Sch. Dist., 153 F.3d
211, 215 (5th Cir. 1998). Section 1983 is not itself a source
of substantive rights; rather, it merely provides a method
for vindicating federal rights conferred elsewhere. See
Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994). In order
to state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must (1)
allege a violation of rights guaranteed by the United States
Constitution or federal law, and (2) demonstrate the alleged
deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of
state law. Doe, 153 F.3d at 215.
fails to allege any facts showing Defendants Pena or Manley
did anything to violate his constitutional rights. This
failure is fatal to his claims. See Brinkmann v. Dallas
County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.
1987); see also Thompson v. Steele, 709 F.2d 381,
382 (5th Cir. 1983) (observing “[p]ersonal involvement
is an essential element of a civil rights cause of
action”). “Supervisory officials are not liable
under § 1983 for the actions of subordinates on any
theory of vicarious liability”; they must have been
“personally involved in the alleged constitutional
deprivation or have engaged in wrongful conduct that is
causally connected to the constitutional ...