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.

Roberson v. Abbott

United States District Court, W.D. Texas, Austin Division

August 27, 2019

STEVIE ANDRE ROBERSON #01877155
v.
GREG ABBOTT

          THE HONORABLE LEE YEAKEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          ANDREW W. AUSTIN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         The 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.

         STATEMENT OF THE CASE

         At the 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 years' imprisonment.

         In his 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.

         Plaintiff 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.

         DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

         A. Standard Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A

         Although 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 Cir. 1998).

         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 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).

         B. Heck-Barred

         Plaintiff's 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 ยง 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 ...

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.