Caldwell v. Miller et al, No. 2:2019cv00021 - Document 16 (N.D. Tex. 2022)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT: Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A, 1915(e)(2) and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), the Court ORDERS Plaintiff's Complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous. (Ordered by Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk on 2/18/2022) (daa)

Download PDF

Caldwell v. Miller et al Doc. 16 Case 2:19-cv-00021-Z-BR Document 16 Filed 02/18/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 77 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AMARILLO DIVISION DEONTAE CALDWELL, TDCJ-CID No. 01903202, Plaintiff, V. § § § § § § U.S. DISTRICT COURT NORTI 11:RN DISTRICT OF Tl:XAS I FILED FEB l 8 2022 I CLERK. U.S. DISTRICT COURT 2:19-CV-021-Z-BR § BRITTNEY MILLER et al., Defendants. § § § MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT Before the Court is Plaintiff's civil rights complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the above-referenced Defendants (ECF No. 3) ("Complaint"), filed January 23, 2019. Plaintiff filed suit prose while incarcerated in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice ("TDCJ"), Correctional Institutions Division. Plaintiff was granted permission to proceed informa pauperis. For the reasons discussed herein, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's Complaint WITH PREJUDICE. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff, a repeat filer in this Court, once again makes claims that are difficult to piece together. ECF No. 3 at 4-13. Plaintiff's claims in this lawsuit overlap his claims in two other lawsuits in this Court: Case Nos. 2:19-cv-018 and 2:19-cv-019. In those cases, Plaintiff alleged TDCJ staff spread misinformation about Plaintiff and his family over ''walkie talkie." See Caldwell v. Ramirez, No. 2:19-cv-018; Caldwell v. Miller, No. 2:19-cv-019. In this lawsuit, Plaintiff lists Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:19-cv-00021-Z-BR Document 16 Filed 02/18/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 78 additional TDCJ personnel who he alleges engaged in this behavior and repeats prior claims made in his prior lawsuits. ECF No. 3 at 3--4. LEGAL STANDARD When a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility brings an action with respect to prison conditions under any federal law, the Court may evaluate the complaint and dismiss it without service of process, Ali v. Higgs, 892 F.2d 438, 440 (5th Cir. 1990), if it is frivolous, 1 malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A, 1915(e)(2). The same standards will support dismissal of a suit brought under any federal law by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility, where such suit concerns prison conditions. 42 U.S.C.§ 1997e(c)(l). A Spears hearing need not be conducted for every pro se complaint. Wilson v. Barrientos, 926 F.2d 480,483 n.4 (5th Cir. 1991). 2 ANALYSIS A complaint that duplicates claims asserted in an earlier action may be deemed malicious and subject to summary dismissal. See Brock v. Cockrell, No. 3-03-CV-0340-M, 2003 WL 21418792, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 26, 2003. Plaintiffs lawsuit is duplicative of his previous lawsuits identified herein. Consequently, Plaintiffs claims against Defendants should be summarily dismissed as duplicative under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). See also Pitman v. Moore, 980 1 A claim is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact. Booker v. Koonce, 2 F.3d 114, 115 (5th Cir. 1993). Green vs. McKask/e, 788 F.2d 1116, 1120 (5th Cir. 1986) ("Of course, our discussion of Spears should not be interpreted to mean that all or even most prisoner claims require or deserve a Spears hearing. A district court should be able to dismiss as frivolous a significant number of prisoner suits on the complaint alone or the complaint together with the Watson questionnaire."). Dismissals may also be based on adequately identified or authenticated records. Banuelos v. McFarland, 41 F.3d 232,234 (5th Cir. 1995). 2 2 Case 2:19-cv-00021-Z-BR Document 16 Filed 02/18/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 79 F.2d 994, 995 (5th Cir. 1993); Wilson v. Lynaugh, 878 F.2d 846, 849 (5th Cir. 1989). The Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs Complaint as frivolous WITH PREJUDICE. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A, 1915(e)(2) and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), the Court ORDERS Plaintiff's Complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous. SO ORDERED. February/~, 2022 SMARYK !STRICT JUDGE 3

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.