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.

Johnson v. Angelina County D.A. Office

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

August 25, 2019

RICHARD JAMES JOHNSON
v.
ANGELINA COUNTY D.A. OFFICE, et al.,

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          RON CLARK, SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff, Richard James Johnson, an inmate confined at the Allred Unit with the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants Angelina County D.A. Office, Angelina County D.A., Court of Criminal Appeals, Texas Bar Association, and the Angelina County Defense Attorney Winfred III.

         The Court referred this matter to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this Court. The Magistrate Judge recommends this action be dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a claim.

         The Court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge filed pursuant to such order, along with the records, and pleadings. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. This requires a de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and applicable law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).

         Plaintiff objects that the Magistrate Judge did not consider all his claims. A review of the complaint, however, reveals that although plaintiff lists several defendants, his only complaint was as follows: “[t]he defendants are denying myself and two other offenders access at our trial transcript records, and information that is of a liberty interest.” Original Complaint, pg. 4 (docket entry no. 1). Under the brief description section for each defendant, plaintiff merely alleges “due process violation, liberty interest” or just “liberty interest.” Based on the foregoing, the Magistrate Judge did not err in construing plaintiff's claims.

         In his Objections, plaintiff adds the following claims:

1. Defendant Texas Bar Association:
They hold information about their member John Ross Kaye, that would help the petitioner show and prove that his trial counsel at the time John Ross Kaye, had Alzhtimers [sic] during trial and was ineffective because of a mental defect rendering petitioner's trial constitutionally infirm.
2. Defendant Winfred Simons III:
This defendant possess [sic] information, facts and proof that an all white jury was illegally empanaled [sic]. By banning and taking blacks off the jury only because they were black rendering conviction constitutionally infirm.
3. Defendant Alberto Charanza-Angelina County D.A.:
This defendant holds information that would prove that the waivor [sic] of jury trial in a burglary conviction was forged rendering conviction constitutionally infirm.
4. Defendant Court of Criminal Appeals:
This defendant holds information that would show whether under state law and Court of Criminal Appeals rules if (1) ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claims must be raised in an initial-review collateral proceeding. (2) Whether ineffective assistance of an initial-review collateral proceeding on an ineffective assistance-at-trial claim may provide cause for a procedural default in a court of criminal appeals habeas proceeding. (3) Whether it's ubiquitous “Denied Without Written Order” gave petitioner a constitutionally sound due process review ...

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.