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.

Marcoot v. Gentry

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

January 16, 2020

MARCUS MARCOOT, TDCJ-CID No. 1919783, Plaintiff,
v.
KEITH GENTRY, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION DISMISSING CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT

          MATTHEW J. KACSMARYK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff MARCUS MARCOOT, 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, Ali 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.[2] Wilson v. Barrientos, 926 F.2d 480, 483 n.4 (5th Cir. 1991).[3]

         PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS

         At the time of filing this complaint, plaintiff was a prisoner incarcerated at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) Neal Unit in Amarillo, Texas. By his complaint, plaintiff sues seven individuals. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff was scheduled for a medical appointment to have his ears flushed. Defendant Jackson, a licensed vocational nurse, performed the procedure to flush plaintiffs ears. Plaintiff claims he asked for the water to be warmer and defendant Jackson became upset with him and ordered him out of the medical unit.

         Plaintiff alleges that he was later written up (given a disciplinary infraction) for an assault on defendant Jackson. Plaintiff filed a grievance demanding the disciplinary charge and conviction be dismissed from his record and his good time, lost as a result of the conviction, be restored. Plaintiff claims this disciplinary infraction possibly cost him parole.

         By these claims, plaintiff alleges that all defendants participated in various unlawful acts that resulted in his disciplinary conviction, including: fabricating evidence against him, perjury, false statements, failure to investigate grievances concerning the incident, and failing to correct misconduct. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and requests "restoration of his good-time credits" and injunctive relief.

         ANALYSIS

         The Supreme Court has held that a section 1983 claim which attacks the constitutionality of a conviction (or imprisonment, as the case may be) does not accrue until that conviction (or sentence) has been "reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus." Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994); Wells v. Bonner, 45 F.3d 90, 94 (5th Cir. 1995). In Edwards v. Balisok, the Supreme Court approved the application of the Heck doctrine to the prison disciplinary setting and held that a state prisoner's claim for damages in a challenge to the validity of the procedures used to deprive him of good-time credits was not cognizable under section 1983. Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997).

         Here, plaintiff is challenging a conviction on a disciplinary case and the resulting sentence. Any consideration of these claims would necessarily invalidate the conviction and sentence, and plaintiff has not shown his disciplinary case was reversed or declared invalid or was called into question by the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Thus, his claims are frivolous.

         CONCLUSION

         For the reasons set forth above and pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, sections 1915 A 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 ...


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.