United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Lufkin Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS
AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
CLARK, SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
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.
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.
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).
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.
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 ...