Hadnot v. Livingston et al, No. 4:2008cv00489 - Document 4 (N.D. Tex. 2009)

Court Description: OPINION and 0RDER OF DISMISSAL UNDER 28 USC 1915A(B)(1) and UNDER 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii)... all of Plaintiff's claims under 42 USC 1983 are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE to their being asserted again until the Heck v. Humphrey conditions are met... see Order for further specifics. (Ordered by Judge Terry R Means on 1/26/2009) (krg)(copy to ED Tex sanctions)

Download PDF

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION JASON HADNOT (TDCJ No. 1421513) VS. BARD LIVINGSTON, et al. § § § § § § CIVIL ACTION NO.4:08-CV-489-Y OPINION and ORDER OF DISMISSAL UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(B)(1) and UNDER 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii) This case is before the Court for review of pro-se inmate and plaintiff Jason Hadnot s case under the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B). Hadnot, an inmate at the Mineral Wells Pre-Parole Transfer facility, filed a form civil-rights complaint seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He names as defendants Brad Livingston, executive director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice ( TDCJ ); Nathaniel Quarterman, director, TDCJCorrectional Institutions Division; and Rissi Owens, identified as a parole board member.(Compl. Style; § IV(B).) Hadnot challenges the failure of defendants to release him to parole, alleging that officials have used false statements that he is involved in organized crime and is a gang leader as a basis to deny him release on parole, knowing such statements are false and without factual support. (Compl. § V; exhibits A and B.) Hadnot seeks to have this Court grant injunctive, declarative and immediate release due to false imprisonment . . .. (Compl. § VI.) A complaint filed in forma pauperis that lacks an arguable basis in law should be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.1 1 Under 28 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,328 (1989). Section 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) requires dismissal not only when an allegation of poverty is untrue or the action is frivolous or malicious, but also when the action . . . fails to state a U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a district court retains broad discretion in determining at any time whether an in-forma-pauperis claim should be dismissed.2 Furthermore, as a part of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires the Court to review a complaint from a prisoner seeking relief from a governmental entity or governmental officer or employee as soon as possible after docketing.3 Consistent with § 1915A is prior case law recognizing that a district court is not required to await a responsive pleading to conduct its § 1915 inquiry.4 Rather, § 1915 gives judges the power to dismiss a claim based on an indisputably meritless legal theory. 5 The Court concludes that Hadnot s claims are not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff seeks from this Court injunctivetype relief from the determination by Texas officials to deny him release on parole. In Heck v. Humphrey,6 the Supreme Court held that a claim that, in effect, attacks the constitutionality of a conviction or imprisonment is not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and does not accrue until that conviction or sentence has been claim on which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e)(2)(A) and (B)(West 2006). 2 See 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e)(2)(West 2006); Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996); see also Wesson v. Oglesby, 910 F.2d 278, 281 (5th Cir. 1990)(discussing authority to dismiss at any time under prior § 1915(d)). 3 See 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A(a)(West 2006). 4 See Schultea v. Wood, 47 F.3d 1427, 1434 (5th Cir. 1995). 5 Id., citing Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). 6 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). 2 reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. 7 Although the Heck opinion involved a bar to claims for monetary damages, a dismissal of a claim for injunctive relief may also be made pursuant to Heck.8 Plaintiff s request to have this Court reopen the parole proceedings and order his release from confinement, if successful, necessarily would imply the invalidity of his present incarceration. Thus, such claims are not cognizable under § 1983 unless Plaintiff has satisfied the conditions set by Heck. With regard to challenges brought under § 1983 to parole proceedings, the Supreme Court clarified that, although challenges only to the procedures used to determine parole eligibility may go forward in a civil suit, if the claims seek to confinement -either invalidate directly the duration through an of [an injunction inmate s] compelling speedier release or indirectly through a judicial determination that necessarily implies the unlawfulness of the State s custody 9--the prisoner must pursue such claim through habeas corpus or similar remedies. As Hadnot seeks immediate release from confinement, the Heck rule bars his claims for injunctive relief. Plaintiff remains 7 Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87; see also Wells v. Bonner, 45 F.3d 90, 94 (5th Cir. 1995). 8 See Clarke v. Stadler, 154 F.3d 186, 190-91 (5th Cir. 1998)(en banc) (holding that a claim for prospective injunctive relief that would imply the invalidity of a prisoner s conviction may be dismissed without prejudice subject to the rule of Heck v. Humphrey), cert. den d, 525 U.S. 1151 (1999). 9 Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 80-81 (2005). 3 in custody and has not shown that the complained-of imprisonment has been invalidated by a state or federal court.10 As a result, Plaintiff's claims are not cognizable under § 1983, and must be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii).11 Therefore, under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii), all of Plaintiff s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE to their being asserted again until the Heck v. Humphrey conditions are met.12 SIGNED January 26, 2009. ____________________________ TERRY R. MEANS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 See McGrew v. Texas Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 47 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 11 See Heck, 512 U.S. at 487-88; McGrew, 47 F.3d at 161. 12 See Johnson v. McElveen, 101 F.3d 423, 424 (5th Cir. 1996). 1995). 4

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.