Robinson v. Snipes et al, No. 3:2009cv01863 - Document 8 (N.D. Tex. 2009)
Court Description: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Plaintiff's complaint should be summarily dismissed. (see order for specifics) (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Jeff Kaplan on 11/2/09) (tln)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Robinson v. Snipes et al Doc. 8 IN THE UNITED STATESDISTRICTCOURT NORTHERN DISTRICTOF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION GREGORY ALLEN ROBINSON. JR. Plaintiff, VS. NO. 3-09-CV-1863-K JUDGEMICHAEL SNIPES. AL. ET Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE This casehas been referred to the United Statesmagistratejudge for pretrial management from the district court. The findings orderof reference pursuant 28 U.S.C. $ 636(b)anda standing to and recommendationof the magistratejudge are as follow: I. This is a pro se civil rights action broughtby GregoryAllen Robinson,Jr., a former Texas and his former prisoner,againsta statedistrict judge, two unknown Dallas County prosecutors,r a 30, attorney.On September 2009,plaintifftendered form civil rights complaintto the district clerk the and filed an application to proceedinforma pauperis. Because information provided by plaintiff to in his pauper'saffidavit indicatesthat he lacks the funds necessary prosecutethis case,the court granted leave to proceed informa pauperis and allowed the complaint to be filed. The court then sent written interrogatories to plaintiff in order to obtain additional information about the factual I Plaintiff named the "District Attorney's Office" as a defendantin his original pro se complaint. Becausethe Blaney v. "District Attorney's Office" is not a legal entity with jural authority, it cannot be sued in federal court. ,See Meyers,No.3-08-CV-1869-P,2009WL 400092at *2 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 17,2009). When this pleadingdefectwas for brought to plaintiffs attention,he identifiedtwo unknown "female D.A.'s" as the personsresponsible violating his civil rights. (SeeMag J. Interrog.#8). Dockets.Justia.com basisof his suit. Plaintiff answered interrogatories October26, 2009. The court now the on dismissed. determines this caseshouldbe summarilv that II. Although his complaint and interrogatoryanswersare difficult to decipher,plaintiff appears to allege that he was wrongfully prosecuted and convicted of theft in 2008. Now that he has dischargedhis one-yearjail sentence,plaintiff seeksto hold the judge, prosecutors,and defense that for counselresponsible his unlawful convictionandimprisonment.Specifically,plaintiff alleges Judge Michael Snipes failed to properly apply the law, refused to dismiss the theft charge, and coercedplaintiff to pleadguilty despitea lack of evidence.(SeeMag. J. Interrog.#2 & 5). Plaintiff of two unnamedDallas County prosecutors engagingin misconduct,including filing false accuses againsthim. (SeePlf. Compl. at 3, !f IV(B); Mag.J. Interrog.#8). Finally, plaintiff contends charges that his attorney,T. Price Stone,failed to providehim with a copy ofthe police report,refusedto file a motion to dismissthe indictment, did not advise family membersof court dates,and generally of renderedineffective assistance counsel. (SeeMag. J. Interrog. #4). By this suit, plaintiff seeks and an order expungingthe theft conviction from his record. money damages A. A district court may summarilydismissa complaintfiled informa pauperis if it concludes that the action: (l) is frivolous or malicious: (2) fails to statea claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seeksmonetaryrelief againsta defendantwho is immune from suchrelief. plaintiff must plead 28 U.S.C. $ 1915(e)(2)(B).To statea claim upon which relief may be granted, "enough facts to statea claim to relief that is plausible on its face,"Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,570,127S.Ct. 1955,1974,167 L.Ed.2d929(2007),andmustpleadthosefactswith level." ld.,127 S.Ct.at 1965. "A enoughspecificity "to raisea right to relief abovethe speculative claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonableinferencethat the defendantis liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, _ u.s. _, neednot contain 129s.ct. 1937,1949,173L.Ed.2d868 (2009). While a complainr the detailedfactual allegations, plaintiff must allegemore than labelsand conclusions. Twombly, factsastrue and view the allegations 127 S.Ct. at 1964-65.The court must acceptall well-pleaded in the light most favorableto the plaintiff. SeeIn re Katrina Canal BreachesLitig.,495 F.3d l9l, 205 (5th Cir . 2007),cert. deniedsub nom., Xavier Univ. of Louisiana v. TravelersCas.Property Co. of America, 128 S.Ct. 1230(2008). B. Plaintiffs claims are subjectto summarydismissalfor at leasttwo reasons.First, judges and prosecutors have absoluteimmunity for actions taken within the scopeof their jurisdiction. See Imbler U.S.349, 356,98S.Ct.1099,I 104,55 L.Ed.2d331 (1978)(judges); Stumpv, Sparkman,435 Public 424 U.S. 409, 427,96 S.Ct. 984, 993,47 L.Ed,2d 128 (1976)(prosecutors). v. Pachtman, and private attorneysare not "stateactors"and cannotbe suedunder 42 U.S.C. $ 1983. defenders see polk County v. Dodson,454 U.S. 312, 324-25,102 S.Ct. 445, 453, 70 L.Ed.zd 509 (1981) (holding that "a public defenderdoesnot act under color of statelaw when performing a lawyer's Feathersonv. Knize,No. in traditionalfunctionsas counselto a defendant a criminal proceeding"); Tex. Aug. 2,2006), citing Mills v. Criminal Dist. 3-06-CV-0729-K,2006WL 2215950at *3 (I.tr.D. evencourt-appointed Court No. 3,837 F.2d677,679(sthcir. 1988)(holdingthat "privateattorneys, attorneys, not official stateactors,and generallyare not subjectto suit under section 1983"). are and counsel,his claimsarebarred Even if plaintiff could suethejudge, prosecutors, defense by the rule in Heck v. Humphrey,512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). Heck holds that a party may not maintain a civil rights action based on the legality of a prior criminal proceedingunlessa statecourt or federalhabeas court hasdeterminedthat the terms of confinement are in fact invalid. Heck,l l4 S.Ct. at2372. The critical inquiry is whethera judgment in favor of imply the invalidity ofhis convictionor sentence." the plaintiff in the civil actionwould "necessarily or Id. lf so,the claim is barredunlessthe convictionhasbeenreversed beendeclaredinvalid. Id.; Hainzev. Richards,207F.3d795,798 (5th Cir.), cert.denied,l2l S.Ct.384 (2000). The gravamenof plaintiffs complaint is that the judge failed to properly apply the law, that the prosecutorsfiled false chargesagainsthim, and that his attorneyrenderedineffective assistance of counsel--allof which resultedin his pleadingguilty to a crime he did not commit. Suchclaims necessarilyimply the invalidity of plaintiffs theft conviction, which has never been reversedor precluded from maintaininga civil declared invalid. (SeeMag.J. Interrog.#7). Plaintiff is therefore v. rightsactionunder42 U.S.C. $ 1983, See,e.g.Castellano Fragozo,352F.3d939,959-60(5th and evidence Cir. 2003),cert. denied,l25 S.Ct.3l (2004)(civil rightsclaim basedon manufactured perjured testimony doesnot accrueuntil statecourt dismissesunderlying criminal action); Ferguson WL I 857130at *2 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 18,2004),rec. v. City of Rowlett,No. 3-04-CV-1429-P,2004 conspired (N.D. Tex. Aug. 31,2004) (claim that police and prosecutor adopted,2004WL 1944082 to manufacturemisleading videotapeand presentfalse evidenceto jury was barredby Heck); Gilkey as WL at*1-2 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 9,2003) (same to v. Graves,No.3-03-CV-0497-G,2003 21653858 judge and othersfor conspiring violateplaintiffs civil rights beforeand during claimsagainst to criminaltrial).2 RECOMMENDATION pursuantto 28 U.S.C. $ 1915(eX2). Plaintiff s complaint shouldbe summarilydismissed A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all parties in the manner provided by law. Any parfy who objects to any part of this report and recommendationmust file copy.See28 U.S.C.$ 636(b)(l); l0daysafterbeingservedwitha specificwrittenobjectionswithin Feo. R. Clv. P. 72(b). In order to be specific, an objection must identi$'the specific finding or recommendationto which objection is made,statethe basisfor the objection, and speciff the place in the magistratejudge's report and recommendationwherethe disputeddeterminationis found. An objection that merely incorporatesby referenceor refers to the briefing before the magistratejudge party from appealing will bar the aggrieved is not specific. Failureto file specificwritten objections judge that are acceptedor adoptedby the the factual findings and legal conclusionsof the magistrate AutomobileAss'n, district court,exceptupongroundsofplain en or. SeeDouglassv. UnitedServices 79 F.3d 1415,l4l7 (SthCir. 1996). DATED: November 2. 2009. STATES ]\,IAGISTRATE JUDGE 2 The court notes that a prior lawsuit brought by plaintiffagainst two of the defendantsnamedherein, JudgeMichael on Snipesand T. Price Stone,also was dismissed Heck grounds. SeeRobinsonv. Stone,No, 3-09-CV-0220-8,2009 WL 790130CN.D.Tex. Mar.25,2009).
]]>
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.
