Stevens v. Houston Police Department et al, No. 4:2024cv00047 - Document 10 (S.D. Tex. 2024)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - Based on the foregoing, the court ORDERS as follows: 1. The Prisoner's 1 Civil Rights Complaint filed by Andre Gary Stevens under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is DISMISSED with prejudice. 2. The dismissal will count as a "strike" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Email sent to Manager of Three Strikes List. (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified.(SheilaRAnderson, 4)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Stevens v. Houston Police Department et al Doc. 10 United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED March 05, 2024 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION ANDRE GARY STEVENS, SPN #02354618, § § § § § § § § § § § Plaintiff, v. HOUSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants. Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CIVIL ACTION NO. H-24-0047 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The plaintiff, Andre Gary Stevens (SPN #02354618), has filed a Prisoner's Civil Rights Complaint under ("Complaint")( Docket Entry No. 1), 42 concerning U.S.C. his § 1983 arrest by officers with the Houston Police Department and the Metro Police Department. Because Stevens is a prisoner who proceeds the court is required by the forma son Litigation Reform Act (the "PLRA") to scrutinize the Complaint and dismiss the case if it " (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) determines that the fails to state a claim on which rel f may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (iii); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). concludes After considering all of the pleadings, the court that this case must be dismissed for the reasons explained below. Dockets.Justia.com I. Background While in custody t the Harris County Jail, Stevens led this civil rights action against the Houston Police Department and the Metro Police Department, concerning his recent arrest. 1 Public records confirm that Stevens was arrested and charged in November of 2023, with theft as a repeat offender in Harris County Case No. 184487401010. 2 On January 29, 2024, Stevens entered a guil plea to the theft charges against him in the 185th District Court for Harris County, Texas. 3 Ha He received a sentence of one year in the s County Jail,4 where he remains in confined. Stevens claims that several items of his personal property "came up missing" after his arrest by unidentified officers with the Houston Police Department and the Metro Police Department. 5 Stevens claims that seven different computers, two "Swiss bags," 1 Complaint, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 3. 2 See Indictment in Case No. 184487401010, available at Office of the Harris County District Clerk, located at: http://www.hcdistrictclerk.com (last visited March 5, 2024). When deciding to dismiss a complaint a "dist ct court may properly take judi al notice of public state court records." Stiel v. Heritage Numismatic Auctions, Inc., 816 F. App'x 888, 892 (5th Cir. 2020) (per curiam). Judgment of Conviction by Court - Waiver of Jury Trial in Case No. 184487401010, available at Office of the Harris County Clerk, located at: http://www.hcdistrictclerk.com (last Dist visited March 5, 2024). 5 Complaint, Docket Entry No. 1, pp. 3-4. -2- and two I-phones were taken from his personal property. 6 up to $10,000.00 in compensatory damages He seeks his missing personal property. II. Standard of Review Federal courts are required by the PLRA to screen prisoner complaints to identify cognizable claims or dismiss the action if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 1584, 1596 (1998) See Crawford-El v. Britton, 118 S. Ct. (summarizing provisions found in the PLRA, including the requirement that district courts screen prisoners' complaints and summarily dismiss frivolous, malicious, or meritless act ); see also Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 1759, 1761-62 (2015) (discussing the screening provision found in the federal in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2), and reforms enacted by the PLRA that were "'designed to filter out the bad claims [filed by prisoners] and facilitate consideration of the good'") ( quoting Jones v. Bock, 127 S. Ct. 910, 914 ( 2007)) (alteration in original). A complaint is frivolous if it "'lacks an arguable basis either in law or in '" Denton v. Hernandez, 112 S. Ct. 1728, 1733 (1992) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 1831 at 4. -3- (1989)). "A complaint lacks an arguable basis in law if it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, such as if the complaint alleges the violation of a legal interest which clearly does not exist." 1999) (citations Harper v. Showers, 174 F.3d 716, 718 (5th Cir. and internal quotation marks omitted). "A complaint lacks an arguable basis in fact if, after providing the plaintiff the opportunity to present additional facts when necessary, the facts alleged are clearly baseless." 138 F.3d 211, 213 (5th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim, the factual al ions in the crn laint "must be enough to raise a relief above the speculative level [.]" to Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007) (citation omitted). If the complaint has not set forth "enough facts to state a claim to rel f that is plaus on its face," it must be dismissed. Id. at 1974. A reviewing court must "'accept all well-pleaded facts as true and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.'" 2020) Heinze v. Tesco Corp., 971 F.3d 475, 479 (5th Cir. (citation omitted). But it need not accept as true any "conclusory allegations, unwarranted factual inferences, or legal conclusions." Id. (internal quotation marks and tations omitted); see also White v. U.S. Corrections, L.L.C., 996 F.3d 302, 306-07 (5th Cir. 2021) (same). In other words, "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere -4- conclusory statements, do not suffice. 11 Ashcroft v. Igbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009} (citing Twombly, 127 S. Ct. at 1965). Because the plaintiff represents himself, his pro se pleadings are held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. 11 curiam}. Haines v. Kerner, 92 S. Ct. 594, 596 ( 1972) (per Even under this lenient standard a plaintiff must allege sufficient facts which, when taken as true, relief that is plausible on its face. state a claim for Legate v. Livingston, 822 F.3d 207, 210 (5th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). A district court may summarily dismiss a J2.£Q. se litigant's lawsuit "before service of process or before the filing of the answer" if it is satisfied that the plaintiff has pleaded his "best case." Brewster v. Dretke, 587 F.3d 764, 767-68 {5th Cir. 2009} {citations omitted}. III. Discussion Stevens sues the Houston Police Department and the Metro Pol Department for actions taken by unidentified Construing the Complaint as one against the City of Houston or the Houston Metropolitan Transit Authority, Stevens fails to state a viable claim. 8 liable under A municipal entity cannot be held vicariously a theory of respondeat superior for wrongdoing subdivisions of the City of Houston or the Houston Metropolitan Transit Authority, Stevens does not establish that the Houston Police Department or the Metro Police Department have the capacity to be sued as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b). Darby v Pasadena Police Dep't, 939 F.2d 311, 313 (5th Cir. 1991). -5- committed by its employees. See Monell v. Dep't of Social Services of City of New York, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 2036 (1978) ("[W]e conclude that a municipality cannot be held liable a tortfeasor - or, in other words, a municipality cannot be held liable under§ 1983 on a respondeat superior theory.") (emphasis in original) . To state a claim for municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege facts identifying "(1) an offic l policy (or custom), of which (2) a policy maker can be charged with actual or constructive knowledge, and (3) a constitutional violation whose 'moving force' is that policy (or custom)." Pineda v. City of Houston, 291 F.3d 325, 328 (5th Cir. 2002); see also Monell, 98 S. Ct. at 2037-38. Stevens does not allege facts that are sufficient to es ish a policy or to state a claim for relief against the City of Houston or the Houston Metropolitan Transit Authority. City of Houston, 237 F.3d 567, 578 (5th See Piotrowski v. r. 2001) (A municipality is liable only for unconstitutional conduct that is directly attributable to it "through some official action or imprimatur; isolated unconstitutional actions by municipal employees will almost never trigger li More importantly, lity."). Stevens's claim concerning his missing property does not establish a constitutional violation. Supreme Court has held that a negligent, deprivation of prope by an -6 - officer The or even intentional, that is random and unauthorized does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation or a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if state law provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy. See Hudson v. 104 S. Ct. 3194, 3204 (1984); §..§.§. also Parratt v. Taylor, 101 S. Ct. 1908, 1917 (1981), overruled in part on other grounds by Daniels v. Williams, 106 S. Ct. 662 (1981). Texas provides a post-deprivation remedy for inmates whose property has been taken or destroyed in an unauthorized manner. Myers v. Klevenhagen, 97 F.3d 91, 94-96 (5th Cir. 1996) (per curiam); 1994) see also Murphy v. Collins, 26 F.3d 541, 543-44 (5th Cir. (explaining that wrongful confiscation of an inmate's personal property may be actionable in Texas under the tort of conversion) ; Stauffer v. Gearhart, 741 F. 3d 574, 583 (5th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) ("In Texas, when an inmate's property is taken without compensation, his remedy is in state court, not federal court."). Therefore, Stevens's claim concerning his missing property must be dismissed as frivolous. 9 Nelson v. Director, Texas Dep't of Crim. Justice, 124 F. App'x 897, 898 (5th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (holding that both the civil rights lawsuit and appeal from the dismissal of a prisoner's seeking compensatory damages for the loss of personal property were "frivolous"). Because Stevens does not allege facts showing that he suffered any physical injury, his claim for compensatory damages is also precluded by the PLRA. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e); §..§.§. also Mayfield v. Texas Dep't of Criminal Justice, 529 F.3d 599, 605-06 (5th Cir. 2008). 9 -7- IV. Conc1usion and Order Based on the foregoing, the court ORDERS as follows: 1. The Prisoner's Civil Rights Complaint filed by Andre Gary Stevens under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Docket Entry No. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice. 2. The dismissal will count as a "strike" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to the plaintiff and to the Manager of the Three Strikes List for the Southern District of Texas at Three Strikes@txs.uscourts.gov. SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on thisS"'th day of ' 2024. SIM LAKE SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -8-
]]>
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.
