Adams v. Paxton et al, No. 6:2019cv00565 - Document 89 (E.D. Tex. 2021)

Court Description: FINAL JUDGMENT. The Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. All pending motions are DENIED as MOOT. The Clerk of Court is instructedto close this case. Signed by District Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle on 2/23/2021. (efarris, )

Download PDF
Adams v. Paxton et al Doc. 89 Case 6:19-cv-00565-JDK-KNM Document 89 Filed 02/23/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 829 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION MARK D. ADAMS, Plaintiff, v. KEN PAXTON, et al., Defendants. § § § § § § § § § § § Case No. 6:19-cv-565-JDK-KNM FINAL JUDGMENT The Court, having considered Plaintiff’s case and rendered its decision by opinion issued this same date, hereby enters FINAL JUDGMENT. It is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for purposes of proceeding in forma pauperis as frivolous and for failure to state a claim against the Defendants Paxton, Mitchell, Moore, Boyd, Gohmert, Livingston, Glassner, Hill, Gastler, White, the Aryan Brotherhood of Texas, Jones, Westbrook, Baldwin, Carrell, Stone, and Masle, and as to the taking of his 80 days of work time credits; DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to the Plaintiff’s claims concerning his Coryell County conviction and the placement of an escape designator in his record, until such time as he can show that the Coryell County conviction has been overturned, expunged, or otherwise set aside; and DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to all other claims, including the Plaintiff’s right to seek redress for the confiscation of his property through the administrative processes of TDCJ or the courts of the State of Texas. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 6:19-cv-00565-JDK-KNM Document 89 Filed 02/23/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 830 All pending motions are DENIED as MOOT. The Clerk of Court is instructed to close this case. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 23rd day of February, 2021. ___________________________________ JEREMY D. KERNODLE 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.