Jones v. City of Houston, Texas, No. 4:2013cv02041 - Document 14 (S.D. Tex. 2013)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 13 MOTION To Halt, denying 11 MOTION Prohibit, denying 12 MOTION to Transfer Case to Supreme Court. The Clerk of Court is ordered not to accept any other filings from Petitioner labeled as a habeas corpus action unless he provides proof in the form of an affidavit from a warden or custodial official that he is in custody. (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified. (aboyd, 4)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION SAMMIE JONES, § § § § § § § § § Petitioner, v. CITY OF HOUSTON, TEXAS, Respondent. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-13-2041 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Petitioner, Sammie Jones, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus (Docket Entry No.1) alleging that violated his constitutional rights. the City of Houston Because the handwritten pro se petition does not allege that Jones was in custody and does not state any facts that could entitle Jones to habeas relief or relief for any other recognizable federal entered an Order on July 12, amended application for cause of 2013, habeas action, the requiring Jones to file an corpus within twenty days setting out the requirements of the amended application Docket Entry No.3). Subsequently, court the court and (Order, granted Jones' motions for extension of time and extended the date for compliance with the court's earlier Order to August 26, 2013, and later September 17, 2013. (Docket Entry Nos. 5 and 7) to Jones has failed to file an amended application as required by the court's earlier orders. Instead l he has filed a Motion to Transfer this case to the United States Supreme Court (Docket Entry No. 12) and a Motion to Halt (Docket Entry No. 13) asking that the court halt all proceedings until ruling on his Motion to Transfer. Al though Jones is proceeding pro se he is nevertheless bound 1 by the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Because Jones l Procedure. habeas petition fails to state that he is in custody and fails to contain a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court/s jurisdiction or a short and plain statement of Jones claims showing that Rule 8(a) (1) and (2)1 he is entitled to relief 1 as l required by the court concludes that he has failed to state a claim for relief. Because Jones has failed to comply with the court/s Order (Docket Entry No.3) the court also concludes 1 that this action is subject to dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(b) AccordinglYI this action will be dismissed with prejudice. Jones has a history of filing frivolous lawsuits. Jones v. United States of America Civil Action No. l (Memorandum and Order of Dismissal l Docket Entry No. See Sammie H-04-2527 13) 1 and Sammie Jones v. Texas Workforce Commission and Internal Revenue Service Action No. Civil l Dismissal Action l No. H-04-3335 Docket Entry No.7); H-11-465 (Dismissal Although Jones is not a prisoner l (Memorandum Jones v. Order Order State of Texas Docket l and Entry 1 of Civil No.5). it appears that he may have filed this action as a habeas action to avoid paying a filing fee and to avoid the effect of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) -2- 1 which prevents a pro se plaintiff in a prisoner civil rights action from proceeding in forma pauperis if three or more prior suits have been dismissed as frivolous Center 136 F. 3d 458 I See or malicious. I 464 Patton v. Jefferson Correctional (5th Cir. 1998). Prisoners who have been barred from filing civil rights complaints have utilized this tactic in an effort to avoid sua sponte dismissal. Newsome v. Dismissal, Dretke, Civil Action Docket Entry No.2) i No. H-04-3098 Sharpless v. A. See, ~, (Memorandum on Officer, Action No. H-01-1861 (Order of Dismissal, Docket Entry No.2) Civil The Clerk of Court is therefore ORDERED not to accept any other filings from Jones labeled as a habeas corpus action unless at the time of filing Jones provides proof in the form of an affidavit from the warden or other custodial official that he is in custody. Absent such proof the Clerk is ORDERED to return the filing to Jones and not to docket it. Jones' Motion to Prohibit (Docket Entry No. 11), Motion to Transfer (Docket Entry No. 12), and Motion to Halt (Docket Entry No. 13) are DENIED. The Clerk will send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to Jones and to the City Attorney for the City of Houston. SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 2nd day of October, 2013. UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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.
