Peters v. Lumpkin et al, No. 4:2022cv02208 - Document 5 (S.D. Tex. 2022)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Email sent to Manager of Three Strikes List. Case terminated on 07/08/2022(Signed by Chief Judge Lee H Rosenthal) Parties notified.(JosephWells, 4)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Peters v. Lumpkin et al Doc. 5 United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION MICHAEL G. PETERS, (TDCJ #2019190) Plaintiff, vs. BOBBY LUMPKIN, et al., Defendants. § § § § § § § § § § July 08, 2022 Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CIVIL ACTION NO. H-22-2208 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER State inmate Michael G. Peters, (TDCJ #2019190), representing himself, has filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on a conspiracy claim. (Docket Entry No. 1). He alleges that the State of Texas, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, and Bobby Lumpkin as Executive Director of TDCJ’s Correctional Institutions Division are using prison mailroom staff to steal prisoners’ mail to prevent them from exposing political crimes. (Id. at 3). He also alleges that the Republican Party is trying to prevent him from exposing the crimes by falsely imprisoning him. (Id.). His complaint contains no facts supporting these allegations. After reviewing the pleadings and Peters’ litigation history as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court dismisses this case. The reasons are explained briefly below. Peters has an extensive history of frivolous and abusive litigation in this and other federal courts. Based on his history, this court previously entered an order precluding Peters from “filing any new case in this District unless he first obtains written permission from a Judge of this District.” Peters, et al. v. Tex. Med. Bd., Civil No. H-22-59 (S.D. Tex. March 21, 2022). Despite this preclusion order, Peters filed his current case without obtaining such written permission. To the extent that this filing could be construed as seeking such written permission, it is denied. Dockets.Justia.com Because of Peters’ record of filing frivolous and abusive lawsuits and the clearly spurious nature of his current complaint, this court will not grant Peters permission to proceed with this action. Peters’ complaint, (Docket Entry No. 1), is dismissed with prejudice. His motion to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee, (Docket Entry Nos. 2, 3), is denied under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Any other pending motions are denied as moot. The court certifies that any appeal from this order is not taken in good faith for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). SIGNED on July 8, 2022, at Houston, Texas. _______________________________________ Lee H. Rosenthal Chief United States District Judge 2
]]>
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.
