Orozco v. City of Angleton et al, No. 4:2016cv01868 - Document 4 (S.D. Tex. 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER dismissing with prejudice 1 Complaint (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified. (aboyd, 4)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Orozco v. City of Angleton et al Doc. 4 United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED June 30, 2016 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION CRISTOBAL MORENO OROZCO, § § § § § § § § § Plaintiff, v. CITY OF ARLINGTON, et al., Defendants. David J. Bradley, Clerk CIVIL ACTION NO. H-16-1868 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Former state inmate Cristobal Moreno Orozco (TDCJ #831994) has filed a Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights under 42 U.S.C. § 198 3 ("Complaint") (Docket Entry No. 1) , challenging the validity of a state court conviction. the court concludes that After reviewing all of the pleadings, this case must be dismissed for the reasons explained below. I . Orozco was Background charged with aggravated County cause number 33,618. 1 kidnapping in Brazoria On March 13, 2000, Orozco entered a 1 Judgment on Plea of Guilty or Nolo Contendere Before Court, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 14. Dockets.Justia.com guilty plea to those charges in the 23rd District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, and received a 15-year prison sentence. 2 In his pending Complaint, which was executed on June 23, 2016, Orozco sues the presiding state court trial judge (Robert E. May), his criminal defense attorney County prosecutors (Von H. Shelton), and two Brazoria (Dale Summa and Terri Tipton Holder) . 3 Orozco purportedly sues all of the defendants in their official capacity as employees of the City of Angleton. damages under 42 U.S.C. § 4 Orozco seeks $400,000.00 in 1983 because his constitutional rights were violated during his state court criminal proceeding. 5 Orozco alleges following reasons: that his conviction is invalid for (1) he was incompetent to stand trial; was denied effective assistance of counsel; (3) the (2) he the prosecutor withheld evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 83 S. Ct. 1194 (1963); (4) he was denied his right to a speedy trial; judgment is void; (6) (5) the his indictment violated double jeopardy; (7) he was not properly admonished in compliance with Rule 11; the complaint was not signed; and ( 9) the 2 Id. 3 Complaint, Docket Entry No. 1, pp. 2-3, 12. 4 Id. at 2-3. 5 Id. at 4, 6. -2- trial court (8) lacked jurisdiction. 6 The court concludes, however, that the Complaint must be dismissed for reasons discussed below. II. Discussion It is well established that a civil rights plaintiff may not recover damages based on conviction or imprisonment, allegations of "unconstitutional or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid," without first proving that the challenged conviction or sentence has been "reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by determinations, or a state called tribunal into authorized question by issuance of a writ of habeas corpus [under] Heck v. 2372 Humphrey, 114 S. Ct. 2364, a to make federal 28 U.S.C. (1994). such court's § 2254." A claim for damages that bears a relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. 1983. § Id. The rule in Heck bars Orozco's Complaint because his allegations would, if true, necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction, which has not been overturned. 7 For this reason, Orozco's civil rights claims are not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. 6 Complaint and Relating Issues, Docket Entry No. 2, pp. 2-6. 7 Court records confirm that Orozco's federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus was dismissed with prejudice in 2002. See Orozco v. Cockrell, Civil No. H-02-2471 (S.D. Tex. July 11, 2002). Orozco did not appeal that result. -3- § 1983 at prejudice. 1996) this time and his complaint must be See Johnson v. McElveen, 101 F.3d 423, dismissed with 424 (5th Cir. (explaining that claims barred by Heck are "dismissed with prejudice to their being asserted again until the Heck conditions are met") . III. Based on the foregoing, Conclusion the court ORDERS that the Complaint filed by Cristobal Moreno Orozco is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to the parties. SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this3o~ day of UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -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.
