United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Amarillo Division
RAMON AREBALO, JR., TDCJ-CID No. 1175082, Plaintiff,
W. THORNBERRY, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION DISMISSING CIVIL RIGHTS
MATTHEW J. KACSMARYK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
RAMON AREBALO, JR., acting pro se and while a prisoner
incarcerated in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
Institutional Division, has filed suit pursuant to Title 42,
United States Code, Section 1983 complaining against the
above-referenced defendants and has been granted permission
to proceed in forma pauperis. For the following reasons,
plaintiffs civil rights complaint is DISMISSED.
prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional
facility brings an action with respect to prison conditions
under any federal law, the Court may evaluate the complaint
and dismiss it without service of process, AH v.
Higgs, 892 F.2d 438, 440 (5th Cir. 1990), if it is
frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915A; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The same standards will
support dismissal of a suit brought under any federal law by
a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other
correctional facility, where such suit concerns prison
conditions. 42 U.S.C. 1997e(c)(1). A Spears hearing
need not be conducted for every pro se
complaint. Wilson v. Barrientos, 926 F.2d
480, 483 n.4 (5th Cir. 1991).
filed a "writ of mandamus" against two named
defendants, Wm. Thornberry (United States Congressman) and
the United States Postal Service, and other unnamed
defendants. By his writ, plaintiff asserts a "pattern of
illegal activity" in the "unlawful delay of
mail" to prison inmates. Plaintiff requests the Court
issue a writ of mandamus to the United States Postal Service
compelling them to "deliver mail." (ECF No. 3).
Plaintiff does not indicate a single instance where his own
mail was not delivered or not delivered timely. The writ
appears to only be a general complaint without reference to
any specific set of facts or deprivations referencing the
is an inmate housed at the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice (TDCJ) Clements Unit in Amarillo, Texas. The Court
notes plaintiffs writ conforms to the handwriting and pattern
of a sanctioned litigant who assists other Clements Unit
prisoners with litigation in defiance of Court sanctions to
the other prisoner's detriment. This appears to be such a
case, where no facts relate to this plaintiff and the
complaint or request for mandamus is filled only with legal
references unrelated to factual allegations.
district courts "have original jurisdiction of any
action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or
employee of the United State or any agency thereof to perform
a duty owed to the plaintiff." 28 U.S.C. § 1361.
However, plaintiffs allegations establish no federal
constitutional or statutory violation specific to the
plaintiff, nor any other individual.
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that
a civil pleading submitted to the Court must contain "a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2).
Each claim must include enough factual allegations "to
raise a right to relief above the speculative level."
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007). Rule 8 also requires that the pleading contain
"a demand for the relief sought." Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(a)(3). Although no technical form is required, each
allegation in a pleading must be simple, concise and direct.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d)(1). Such a statement and demand is
necessary to provide the opposing party with fair notice of
what the claim is, the grounds upon which it rests, and the
relief being sought. In reviewing the adequacy of a pleading,
the task of this Court is not to decide if the pleading party
will eventually be successful, but to determine if a
"legally cognizable claim" has been asserted.
Thompson v. City of Waco, Tex., 764 F.3d 500, 502-03
(5th Cir. 2014).
complaint is wholly inadequate and fails to provide anything
related to a request for relief or grounds for his suit. To
the extent plaintiff thinks the Court should sift through his
attachments to guess at his claims, the Court declines to do
Court cannot act as plaintiffs attorney and construct his
claims for him. As a pro se litigant, plaintiff has assumed
that role for himself. Plaintiff is the master of his
complaint and is, in the end, the person responsible for
articulating the facts that give rise to a cognizable claim.
Davis v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1003, 1005-1006 (5th Cir.
reasons set forth above and pursuant to Title 28, United
States Code, sections 1915A and 1915(e)(2), as well as Title
42, United States Code, section 1997e(a), it is ORDERED that
the Civil Rights Complaint by plaintiff filed pursuant to
Title 42, United States Code, section 1983 be DISMISSED