Caldwell v. Raines et al, No. 2:2019cv00110 - Document 10 (N.D. Tex. 2022)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT - Court ORDERS Plaintiffs Complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Order Denying 8 request to terminate filing fee and 9 request to terminate filing fee by Deontae Caldwell (Ordered by Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk on 6/21/2022) (djs)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Caldwell v. Raines et al Doc. 10 Case 2:19-cv-00110-Z-BR Document 10 Filed 06/21/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 27 ll.S. DISTRICT COURT NORTI IER DISTRICT OF TEXA S IN THE UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COUR FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXA AMARILLO DIVISION DEONT AE CALDWELL, TDCJ-CID No. 01903202, Plaintiff, V. TERRY RAINES, et al. , § § § § § § § § FlLED I JUN 2 1 2022 I CLE RK , U.S. DISTRICT COURT 4 By 15cp11ty 2:19-CV-110-Z-BR § Defendants. § MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL-RIGHTS COMPLAINT Before the Court is Plaintiffs civil-rights Complaint (ECF No. 3) brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , filed on July 25, 2019.Plaintiff filed suit prose while a prisoner incarcerated in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice ("TDCJ"), Correctional Institutions Division. Plaintiff failed to request to proceed in forma pauperis in this case. However, Plaintiff filed several contemporaneous cases with such applications, and the Court granted this status to Plaintiff in his other cases. The Court thus also GRANTS informa pauperis status to Plaintiff in this case. For the reasons discussed herein, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs Complaint WITH PREJUDICE. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff alleges he attended a disciplinary hearing on January 8, 2018. ECF No. 3 at 5. Plaintiff asserts that during the hearing, TDCJ personnel , listed as Defendants to this lawsuit, acted ignorant of his claims of danger to his person. Id. Plaintiff contends TDCJ staff failed to investigate his claims that "mindsets" and "thoughts" were being "put into his brain" by TDCJ staff and other inmates, and TDCJ staff did not attempt to resolve Plaintiffs other than to claim Plaintiff needed mental health treatment. Id. Although Plaintiff filed grievances about this issue, he asserts his Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:19-cv-00110-Z-BR Document 10 Filed 06/21/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 28 grievances were not properly resolved. Id. Plaintiff states that if another inmate in a nearby cell were to "shoot his thought processes" at Plaintiff, he would not be able to defend himself. Id. LEGAL ST ANDA RD 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)(1). 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 prisoner lacks a constitutionally protected interest in having his complaints and grievances resolved to his satisfaction. Geiger v. Jowers , 404 F.3d 371 , 374 (5th Cir. 2005). Plaintiff therefore cannot pursue claims about Defendants' failure to adequately resolve grievances. The Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs grievance-related claims WITH PREJUDICE. Plaintiffs remaining claims appear delusional. The in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 191 S(d), authorizes courts to dismiss an in forma pauperis claim if the action is 1 2 A claim is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact. Booker v. Koonce, 2 F.3d I 14, I 15 (5th Cir. 1993). Green vs. McKaskle, 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. " ) Case 2:19-cv-00110-Z-BR Document 10 Filed 06/21/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 29 "frivolous." Frivolous claims include those "describing fantastic or delusional scenarios, claims with which federal district judges are all too familiar." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989). Plaintiffs claims are delusional. Plaintiff claims he is in danger from TDCJ staff and other inmates who can "shoot their thought processes" at him and subject him to harm. The Court thus DISMISSES Plaintiffs delusional claims WITH PREJUDICE. The Court DENIES Plaintiffs requests to terminate his filing fee. See ECF Nos.8, 9. Filing fees attach at the time that a Complaint is filed. 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 Plaintiffs Complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. SO ORDERED. June i/_,2022 MA HEW J. KACSMARYK UNITED STA TES DISTRICT JUDGE
]]>
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.
