Peters v. Stephens, No. 4:2015cv02762 - Document 3 (S.D. Tex. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER. (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified. (cfelchak, 4)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Peters v. Stephens Doc. 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION MICHAEL G. PETERS, INMATE #551534, § § § § § § § § § § Plaintiff, V. TRACY GILBERT, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-15-2762 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The plaintiff, Michael G. Peters, is an inmate in custody at the Montgomery County Jail. damages against a witness Peters has filed a civil action for who testified against criminal proceeding that resulted in his conviction. him during a Because he is incarcerated, the court is required to scrutinize the pleadings and dismiss the complaint in whole or in part if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary damages from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. After reviewing all of the pleadings as required, the court concludes that this action will be dismissed for reasons that follow. Dockets.Justia.com I. Background Peters is currently incarcerated in the Montgomery County Jail as the result of a recent conviction in cause number 14-08207-CR. 1 A jury convicted Peters of unlawful harassment or retaliation and sentenced him to serve 35 years' imprisonment. 2 The de fen dan t , Tracy Gilbert, testified against Peters at his trial. 3 Peters contends that he is actually innocent and that Gilbert committed perjury during her testimony. 4 the amount of more than $1 billion. 5 Peters seeks damages in Peters also demands that Gilbert admit that she lied and that she be sentenced to one year of community service or one year in jail. 6 II. Discussion As an initial matter, the court notes that Peters styles his Complaint as a "Writ of Habeas Corpus for Civil Suit." 7 does not seek relief in the form of release from confinement. ~~ Preiser v. Rodriguez, 93 S. Ct. 1827 (1973) 1 Peters See, (explaining that Writ of Habeas Corpus for Civil Suit ("Complaint"), Docket Entry No. 1, pp. 2, 3. 2 Id. 3 Id. at 1-3. 4 Id. 6 Id. -2- the writ of habeas corpus is the appropriate federal remedy for a prisoner challenging the "fact of confinement"). line rule" adopted determination would by not the Fifth Circuit is a civil if automatically entitle accelerated release from confinement, claims Under a "bright- action under 42 a the favorable prisoner to the proper vehicle for his U.S. C. § Johnson, 112 F.3d 818, 820-21 (5th Cir. 1997) 1983. Carson v. (citation omitted). Peters' civil action against Gilbert will be dismissed because it is well established that a witness has absolute immunity for testimony given in a judicial proceeding. 103 S. Ct. 1108, 1113-14 (1983) See Briscoe v. LaHue, (noting that under common law witnesses were absolutely immune from subsequent damages for their testimony in judicial proceedings "even if the witness knew the statements were false and made them with malice") ; Enlow v. Tishomingo County, Mississippi, 962 F.2d 501, 511 (5th Cir. 1992) ("Witnesses, including police officers, are shielded by absolute immunity from liability for their allegedly perjurious testimony."). The allegations outlined in the Complaint stem entirely from Gilbert's testimony against Peters in open court. Therefore, she is entitled to absolute immunity from suit in this instance. Rodriguez v. Lewis, 427 F. App'x 352, 353 (5th Cir. 2011) omitted). See (citation Because Gilbert is absolutely immune from suit, she is immune from damages as well. Id. -3- (citing Disraeli v. Rotunda, 489 F.3d 628, 631 (5th Cir. 2007) (noting that absolute immunity denies all remedies to an individual); Hulsey v. Owens, 63 F.3d 354, 356 (5th Cir. 1995) (holding that absolute immunity is immunity from suit rather than simply a defense against liability). the court will dismiss the Complaint as As a result, legally frivolous for seeking monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 u.s.c. § 1915A(b). III. Based on the foregoing, Conclusion the court ORDERS as follows: 1. Officials having custody of Michael G. Peters are ORDERED to deduct funds from his inmate trust account and forward them to the Clerk on a regular basis, in compliance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b), until the entire filing fee ($350.00) has been paid. 2. The plaintiff's Complaint (Docket Entry No. 1) DISMISSED with prejudice as legally frivolous. is The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to the parties. The Clerk will also provide a copy of this Order by regular mail, facsimile transmission, or e-mail to the District Clerk for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, 211 West Ferguson, Tyler, Texas 75702, Attention: Manager of the Three-Strikes List. SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 1st day of LAKE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -4-
]]>
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.
