Beach v. Stickler et al, No. 4:2023cv01462 - Document 3 (S.D. Tex. 2023)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - The 1 Complaint filed by Joseph Andrew Beach (TDCJ #2149718) is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The dismissal will count as a STRIKE for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1983...*** Email sent to Manager of Three Strikes List. (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified.(sanderson, 4)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Beach v. Stickler et al Doc. 3 Case 4:23-cv-01462 Document 3 Filed on 04/25/23 in TXSD Page 1 of 5 United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED April 25, 2023 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION JOSEPH ANDREW BEACH, TDCJ #2149718, Plaintiff, v. TOM STICKLER, et al., Defendants. § § § § § § § § § § Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CIVIL ACTION NO. H-23-1462 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER State inmate Joseph Andrew Beach (TDCJ #2149718) has filed a Criminal Complaint: Affidavit of Information ("Complaint") (Doc Entry No. 1), alleging constitutional violations by his criminal defense counsel, the prosecutor, and the state district judge who presided over his er 1 proceeding in Brazoria County Case No. 86276-CR. Because Beach seeks monetary damages for the violation of his 1 rights the Complaint is construed to arise under 42 u.s.c. § 1983.1 The court is required to scrutinize pleadings filed by prisoners and dismiss the action if the complaint is "frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted," or "seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). After considering all of the pleadings, the court concludes that s case must be dismissed for the reasons explained below. a prisoner gives to pro se pleadings is not control ; rather, courts look at the content of the pleading. United States v. Santora, 711 F.2d 41, 42 n.l (5th Cir. 1983). Dockets.Justia.com Case 4:23-cv-01462 Document 3 Filed on 04/25/23 in TXSD Page 2 of 5 :r. Background Beach is currently incarcerated by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice defendants are ("TDCJ") at the Preston E. Beach's Stickler; former Bra former criminal Smith Unit.2 defense counsel, The Tom County District Judge Terri Holder; and Brazoria County prosecutor Cindy Bridges. Beach alleges that the defendants conspired to "rig" a jury trial against him in Brazoria County Case No. 86276-CR.4 Public records reflect that Beach was convicted of criminal solicitation of tal murder in that case imprisonment on August 26, 2022. 5 and sentenced to 55 years' Beach argues that he is innocent and that he was wrongfully convicted as a result of the defendants' actions, which denied him the right to call witnesses, to present a defense, to have the assistance of counsel of his choice, the right to due process, and the right to equal protection.6 criminal charges against the defendants and a He seeks total of $6,130,000.00 in damages for the violation of his constitutional Complaint, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 1. For purposes of identi ion, all page numbers reference the pagination imprinted on each docket entry by the court's electronic case ling system, ECF. 2 at 3. TDCJ Offender Information, available https://inmate.tdcj.texas.gov (last visited April 21, 2023). Complaint, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 4. 6 -2 - at: Case 4:23-cv-01462 Document 3 Filed on 04/25/23 in TXSD Page 3 of 5 rights.7 II. Discussion To the extent that Beach seeks criminal charges against the defendants, his Complaint fails to state a claim because there is no private right of action to bring criminal charges. See Back v. Texas Dep't of Criminal Justice Correctional Institutions Div., 716 F. App'x 255, 259 (5th Cir. Dec. 11, 2017) (per curiam, unpublished) (citing Gill v. Texas, 153 F. App'x 261, 262 (5th Cir. 2005) (per curiam); Oliver v. Collins, 904 F.2d 278, 281 (5th Cir. 1990); Chapa v. Adams, 168 F.3d 1036, 1038 (7th Cir. 1999)). Therefore, Beach has no standing to assert criminal violations. See Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 93 S. Ct. 1146, 1149 (1973) (" [A] private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another."); Doyle v. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n, 998 F.2d 1559, 1566-67 (10th Cir. 1993) (a private citizen has no standing to have lawyer disciplined or criminally charged); Sattler v. Johnson, 857 F.2d 224, 227 (4th Cir. 1988) (neither member of public at large nor victim has right to have another criminally prosecuted). In addition, Beach's claim for monetary damages in connection with his criminal conviction is precluded by the rule in Heck v. Humphrey, 114 S. Ct. 2364 (1994). 7 Id. at 6. -3- Under this rule a civil rights Case 4:23-cv-01462 Document 3 Filed on 04/25/23 in TXSD Page 4 of 5 plaintiff cannot recover money damages based on allegat of "unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid," conviction without first proving that or sentence has been "reversed on the challenged direct 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 [under] 28 U.S.C. § 2254." Heck, 114 S. Ct. at 2372. Beach's allegations against the defendants implicate the validity of his conviction in Brazoria County Case No. 86276-CR, which not been overturned. Therefore, his civil rights claims against the defendants will be dismissed with prejudice to being asserted again until a met. the conditions described in Heck are Johnson v. McElveen, 101 F.3d 423, 424 (5th Cir. 1996) (observing that this kind of dismissal "do[es] not preclude a later claim meeting the preconditions for suit" outlined in Heck); also Cook v. City of Tyler, Texas, 974 F.3d 537, 539 (5th Cir. 2020). III. Conclusion and Order Based on the foregoing, the court ORDERS as follows: 1. The Complaint filed by Joseph Andrew Beach (TDCJ #2149718) {Docket Entry No. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) for failure to state a claim upon which rel f may be -4 Case 4:23-cv-01462 Document 3 Filed on 04/25/23 in TXSD Page 5 of 5 granted. 2. The dismissal will count as a STRIKE for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1983. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to the plaintiff. copy of this Order the Manager The Clerk will also send a of Three Strikes Three Strikes@txs.uscourts.gov. SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 2)?J, day of A ,d, List at 2023. SIM LAKE SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -5-
]]>
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.
