Perez v. United States of America, et al, No. 2:2010cv00246 - Document 63 (S.D. Tex. 2011)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND TO ADD AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY denying 54 MOTION to Add Party Indispensable.(Signed by Magistrate Judge B. Janice Ellington) Parties notified.(bcortez, )

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION STEVEN PEREZ Plaintiff VS. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al. § § § § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. C-10-246 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND TO ADD AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY Plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint to add the Nueces County District Attorney s Office as an indispensable party (D.E. 54). Plaintiff claims that the District Attorney s Office failed to train and supervise its prosecutors, resulting in violation of his constitutional rights. Leave to amend should be freely granted, unless the amendment would be futile. Central Laborers Pension v. Integrated Elec., 497 F.3d 546 (5th Cir. 2007). The District Attorney s Office is not a person for purposes of a § 1983 lawsuit. Hudson v. City of New Orleans, 174 F.3d 677 (5th Cir. 1999). But even if plaintiff sought to add Nueces County as a defendant, or Carlos Valdez, the District Attorney in his official capacity, plaintiff s claims are still barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364 (1994), because plaintiff has not demonstrated that his convictions have been dismissed 1/2 or overturned. Connors v. Graves, 538 F.3d 373, 377 (5th Cir. 2008). Amendment would be futile. Accordingly, plaintiff s motion to amend (D.E. 54) is denied. ORDERED this 8th day of July, 2011. ___________________________________ B. JANICE ELLINGTON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2/2

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.