Aleman v. Martin et al, No. 2:2013cv00084 - Document 8 (N.D. Tex. 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL: It is hereby ordered that the Civil Rights Complaint filed pursuant to Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983, by plaintiff Juan Casteneda Aleman is Dismissed with Prejudice as Frivolous. Let Judgment be entered accordingly. (Ordered by Judge Mary Lou Robinson on 9/15/2014) (egb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AMARILLO DIVISION JUAN CASTENEDA ALEMAN, PRO SE, also known as JUAN ALEMAN, TDCJ-CID No. 1669556, Plaintiff, v. BARRY L. MARTIN, Senior Warden; and UNKNOWN FEMALE OFFICER, Defendants. § § § § § § § § § § § § 2:13-CV-0084 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL Plaintiff JUAN CASTENEDA ALEMAN, acting prose and while a prisoner incarcerated in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, has filed suit pursuant to Title 42, United States Code, section 1983 complaining against the above-referenced defendants and has been granted leave to proceed pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, section 1915. Plaintiff claims that during a November 8, 2012 unit transfer, he had to stay overnight at the Clements Unit, where his property was inventoried by the defendant UNKNOWN FEMALE OFFICER and taken away pursuant to standard procedure. Plaintiff says his property was not returned to him the following morning when the other inmates received their property. As to defendant Senior Warden MARTIN, plaintiff alleges he "[e]rroneously claims that [plaintiff] received [his] property." Plaintiff requests the unspecified value of his property and the replacement of his legal documents. JUDICIAL REVIEW When a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or from an officer or employee of a governmental entity, the Court must evaluate the complaint and dismiss it without service of process, Ali v. Higgs, 892 F.2d 438, 440 (5th Cir. 1990), if it is frivolous1, 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)(l). A Spears hearing need not be conducted for every prose complaint. Wilson v. Barrientos, 926 F.2d 480, 483 n.4 (5th Cir. 1991)2. The District Judge has reviewed plaintiffs pleadings and has viewed the facts alleged by plaintiff to determine if his claims present grounds for dismissal or should proceed to answer by defendants. THE LAW AND ANALYSIS For negligent or random, unauthorized deprivations of the sort described by plaintiff, Texas provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy by way of a civil action in tort for conversion. Murphy v. Collins, 26 F.3d 541, 543-44 (holding that, in Texas, the tort of conversion is an adequate post-deprivation remedy); Thompson v. Steele, 709 F.2d 381, 383 (5th Cir.1983) (holding that a state action for damages is an adequate remedy), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 248, 78 L.Ed.2d 236 (1983). Plaintiff has simply come to federal court with a claim that can only be asserted in a state court. For that reason, plaintiffs claim lacks an arguable basis in law and is frivolous. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). 1 A claim is frivolous ifit lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact, Booker v. Koonce, 2 F.3d 114, 115 (5th Cir. 1993); see, Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 1733, 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992). 2 Cf, Green v. McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1116, 1120 (5th Cir. 1986) ("Of course, our discussion of Spears should not be interpreted to mean that all or even most prisoner claims require or deserve a Spears hearing. A district court should be able to dismiss as frivolous a significant number of prisoner suits on the complaint alone or the complaint together with the Watson questionnaire."). 2 As to defendant Senior Warden MARTIN, plaintiff has alleged, at most, negligence; however, section 1983 imposes liability for deprivation of constitutionally protected rights, not for violations of tort duties of care. Griffith v. Johnston, 899 F.2d 1427, 1435 (5th Cir. 1990); see, also, Daniels v. Williams, 4 74 U.S. 327, 331-34, 106 S.Ct. 662, 664-67, 88 L.Ed.2d 662 (1986)(inmate slipped on pillow left on stairs). This claim, too, lacks an arguable basis in law and is frivolous. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). CONCLUSION Pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. sections 1915A and 1915(e)(2), as well as Title 42, United States Code, section 1997e(c)( 1), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Civil Rights Complaint filed pursuant to Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983, by plaintiff JUAN CASTENEDA ALEMAN is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE AS FRIVOLOUS. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. A copy of this Order shall be mailed to plaintiff and to any attorney of record by first class mail. The Clerk shall also mail copies of this Order of Dismissal to TDCJ-Office of the General Counsel, P.O. Box 13084, Austin, TX 7871.l; and to the Pro Se Clerk at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division. It is SO ORDERED. Signed this the _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _,/5~_4- _ day of September, 2014. _ r 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
