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 Rules of the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Texas. Before the Court is Plaintiff's Complaint.
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has paid the full filing fee
for this case.
OF THE CASE
time he filed his complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983, Plaintiff was confined in the Boyd Unit of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice - Correctional Institutions
Division. Plaintiff was convicted of failure to register as a
sex offender in the 114th Judicial District Court of Smith
County, Texas on August 1, 2013, and was sentenced to 25
civil rights complaint Plaintiff challenges the
constitutionality of the Sex Offender Registration statute.
He contends the statute violates his right to equal
protection, because it waives or exempts the registration
requirements of persons with the same or similarly situated
reportable convictions or adjudications that occurred prior
to a specified date.
raised this same issue in his Objections to the Magistrate
Court's Report and Recommendation in his federal habeas
corpus action in Roberson v. Director, No.
6:16-CV-104 (E.D. Tex.). The District Court found the
objection was not properly before the court, because it was
raised for the first time in his objections. However, the
court also rejected the claim on the merits.
Standard Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
Plaintiff paid the full filing fee for this case, his claims
must be screened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. On
review, the Court must dismiss the complaint, or any portion
of the complaint, if the complaint is frivolous, malicious,
or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or
seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief. See Martin v. Scott, 156 F.3d 578 (5th
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 plaintiff'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. M Bank Houston, N.A.,
808 F.2d 358, 359 (5th Cir. 1986).
challenge is barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.
477, 486-87 (1994) and the Fifth Circuit's application of
Heck to state prisoner § 1983 lawsuits in
Boyd v. Biggers, 31 F.3d 279 (5th Cir. 1994). In
Heck, the Supreme Court held:
[I]n order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional
conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by
actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or
sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove 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 ...