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.

Mata v. Robinson

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Amarillo Division

January 16, 2020

JESUS DOMINGUEZ MATA, TDCJ-CID No. 2020692, Plaintiff,
v.
MARY LOU ROBINSON, et al, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION DISMISSING CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT

          MATTHEW J. KACSMARYK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Plaintiff JESUS DOMINGUEZ MATA, 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.

         JUDICIAL REVIEW

         When a 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, Alt v. Higgs, 892 F.2d 438, 440 (5th Cir. 1990), if it is frivolous, [1] 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).[2]

         PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS

         Plaintiff filed a "writ of mandamus" against three named defendants: Mary Lou Robinson, Clinton Averitte, and the United States prosecutor assigned to his criminal case. By his writ, plaintiff does not cite specific factual allegations of misconduct by defendants (ECF No. 3). The writ appears to only be a general complaint, but plaintiff specifically sues the former United States Senior District Judge, the former United States Magistrate Judge, and presumably the United States Department of Justice Prosecutor, all of the Amarillo Division of the Northern District of Texas.

         ANALYSIS

         At the time of this filing, plaintiff was 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 prisoners' 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.

         Federal district courts "have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States 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 or to any other individual.

         Additionally, 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 the 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).

         Plaintiffs 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 so.

         The 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 ultimately is the master of his complaint and 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. 1998).

         Additionally, to any extent plaintiffs claims relate to actions taken by the defendants against him in some other criminal or civil litigation in this district, all defendants sued by plaintiff are entitled to immunity. The United States District Judge and United States Magistrate Judge are entitled to absolute judicial immunity for judicial acts, and the United States prosecutor is entitled to prosecutorial immunity. Judges are absolutely immune from liability for damages for judicial acts "that are not performed in clear absence of all jurisdiction, however erroneous the act and however evil the motive." Johnson v. Kegans,870 F.2d 992, 995 (5th Cir. 1989), cert, denied,492 U.S. 921 (1989). Prosecutors are immune from section 1983 suits for acts that are within the scope of their prosecutorial duties. Imbler v. Pachtman,424 U.S. 409 (1976). Prosecutorial immunity has been extended to a prosecutor's actions in initiating, investigating, and pursuing a criminal prosecution. Cook v. Houston Post,616 F.2d 791, 793 (5th Cir. 1980). This immunity encompasses acts within the ...


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.