United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Amarillo Division
JESUS DOMINGUEZ MATA, TDCJ-CID No. 2020692, Plaintiff,
MARY LOU ROBINSON, et al, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION DISMISSING CIVIL RIGHTS
MATTHEW J. KACSMARYK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
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.
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,  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.
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.
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
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.
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).
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 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).
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 ...