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.

Trevino v. State

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division

January 2, 2020

JOSEPH J. TREVINO, (Tarrant No. 0355518) Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF TEXAS, Et Al. Defendants,

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL UNDER 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(B) AND 1915(E)(2)(B)

          MARK T. PITTMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This case is before the Court for review of pro-se inmate/plaintiff Joseph J. Trevino's (“Trevino”) case under the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B). Having reviewed the complaint, the Court finds that this action must be DISMISSED under authority of these provisions.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Trevino, an inmate at the Tarrant County Jail, completed and filed the Court's civil-rights complaint form. Complaint, ECF No.1. He also identifies himself as “Dunaway Green Huette, ” “Sea Dreamer, ” and “De Pour Haus.” Complaint 4, ECF No.1. Trevino named as defendants the State of Texas or Killeen Army Base, ESPN and TNT, Kroger Community Stores, Chicago's Empire Records, Warner Brothers, and Time Warner. Id. at 2. Plaintiff contends these defendants are responsible for such things as (1) the “murder” of his father, sister, and wife; (2) the break-up of his marriage; (3) the extortion of his family; and (4) defamation of his character. Id. at 3-4. Plaintiff requests a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and “just compensation.” Id. 4.

         II. LEGAL STANDARD OF REVIEW UNDER §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B)

         Plaintiff Trevino is an inmate who has been permitted to proceed in forma pauperis. As a part of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires a district court to review a complaint from a prisoner seeking relief from a governmental entity, officer, or employee as soon as possible after docketing. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A(a). Because Trevino is proceeding in-forma-pauperis, his complaint is also subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Both § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A provide for sua sponte dismissal of the complaint or any portion thereof, if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A.

         A complaint is frivolous when it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A claim lacks an arguable basis in law when it is “based on an indisputably meritless legal theory.” Id. at 327. A claim lacks an arguable basis in fact when it describes “fantastic or delusional scenarios.” Id. at 327-28. Courts

may dismiss a claim as factually frivolous only if the facts alleged are clearly baseless, a category encompassing allegations that are fanciful, fantastic, and delusional. As those words suggest, a finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them.

Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

         III. ANALYSIS-FRIVOLOUS CLAIMS

         In this instance, the allegations in Trevino's complaint have risen to the level of the irrational or wholly incredible. Trevino has included only conclusory statements against the State of Texas and national companies that are wholly devoid of any particular facts or any rational basis for how any of the defendants could be responsible to him. Trevino's allegations include the following statements as to why he named each defendant:

Defendant #1: State of Texas or Kileen [sic] Army Base-Murder of my Father & my sister & my wife. Also captivity of my Children & Extortion of my family.
Defendant #2: ESPN & TNT movie station may be partially liable ...

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.