Manuel v. Jones Manuel, No. 4:2016cv00080 - Document 4 (S.D. Tex. 2016)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION granting 2 MOTION/APPLICATION to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, any remaining motions are denied as moot. (Signed by Judge Lee H Rosenthal) Parties notified. (cfelchak, 4)

Download PDF
Manuel v. Jones Manuel Doc. 4 United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION BRICKEY JUAN MANUEL, SR., (TDCJ-CID #02026549) Plaintiff, vs. PAULA KAYE JONES MANUEL, Defendant. § § § § § § § January 26, 2016 David J. Bradley, Clerk CIVIL ACTION NO. H-16-0080 § § § MEMORANDUM AND OPINION Brickey Juan Manuel, Sr., an inmate of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Correctional Institutions Division, sued Paula Kaye Jones Manuel, his wife, in January 2016, alleging a denial of due process. Manuel is representing himself and proceeding in forma pauperis, without prepaying the entire filing fee. Federal courts are authorized to review, before docketing, if feasible, or in any event as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court must dismiss any part ofthe complaint that is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992); Richardson v. Spurlock, 260 F.3d 495, 498 (5th Cir. 2001)(citing Siglar v. Hightower, 112F.3d 191,193 (5thCir.1997)). "Acomplaintlacksanarguablebasisinlawifitis based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, such as if the complaint alleges the violation of a legal interest which clearly does not exist." Davis v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1003, 1005 (5th Cir. 1998)(quotingMcCormickv. Stalder, 105 F.3d 1059,1061 (5thCir. 1997)). P :\CASES\prisoner~habeas\20 16\ 16..0080. a03 .wpd Dockets.Justia.com Manuel states that he and Paula Kaye Jones Manuel were married on September 16, 1992 and separated in 2014. In 2001, Manuel and his wife ran a business called "Angels Express." Manuel states that because he is unable to file for a divorce, he filed this suit to recover his share of the community property. The suit cannot proceed. Manuel has no civil rights claim against his wife, a private person who does not work for the government. Claims for damages for civil and constitutional rights violations must proceed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which requires government or state action. The conduct of a private person like Manuel's wife is not state action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 329 (1983). This court has no jurisdiction over Manuel's suit against Paula Kaye Jones Manuel. The suit is dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 19l5A(b)(l). The motion to proceed informapauperis, (Docket Entry No. 2), is granted, and any remaining motions are denied as moot. SIGNED on January 25, 2016, at Houston, Texas. Lee H. Rosenthal United States District Judge P :\CASES\prisoner-habeas\20 16\ 16-0080 .a03 .wpd 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.