Brown v. Rodriguez et al, No. 4:2018cv00362 - Document 25 (S.D. Tex. 2018)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. 1 Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint is dismissed. Email sent to Manager of Three Strikes List. (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified.(gclair, 4)

Download PDF

Brown v. Rodriguez et al Doc. 25 United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED November 20, 2018 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION David J. Bradley, Clerk MICHAEL Q. BROWN, TDCJ #630050, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO . :-18-0362 RODRIGUEZ, Defendants. M EMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER State inmate Michael Brown (TDCJ #630050, former SPN Rights Complaint under #1113425) has filed a Prisoner's ('Ncomplaint'')(Docket Entry regarding altercation he had with another inmate at the Harris County Jail, where Brown was formerly in custody . At the court 's request, Brown has filed Plaintiff's More Definite Statement of his claims (Docket Entry No. Because Brown pauperis, an inmate proceeding in forma required dismiss the Complaint , the Complaint scrutinize the claim s and whole part, if frivolous, malicious, upon determines that fails claim ''seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.'' 28 l9l5(e)(2)(B). concludes 55 1915A (b), After considering al1 of the pleadings the court that case must be dismissed for the reasons explained below . Dockets.Justia.com Backlround 2017, Johnson was incarcerated pending charges the Harris County state court for unlawfully possessing a firearm previously convicted felonx December 2017, Brown claims that he was assaulted by another inmate at the Jail .2 Brown contends that Detention Officer Rodriguez witnessed the attack but not file assault charges against the other inmate .3 Instead , Officer Rodriguez filed a disciplinary case against Brown for ''fighting'' with another inmate .4 December 25, 2017, Brown learned that the disciplinary case against him was dismissed .s Although the disciplinary case against him was dismissed and he was not physically injured by the assault, Brown complains that he was denied an opportunity be heard and press crim inal charges regarding the incident .f Invoking 42 5 1983, Brown sues Officer Rodriguez, Senior Hearing O fficer Disciplinary Comm ittee Member C . Moorer Sheriff Gon zalez, and nUnknown Grievance Board Investigators'' for violating his right 'Plaintiff's More Definite Statement, Docket Entry No . 23, p . zcomplaintr Docket Entry No . 1r 3Id . lplaintiff's More Definite Statement, Docket Entry No. 23, p . 51 =d 6Id . at due process and equal protectionx defendants violated Brown claims that these constitutional rights filing crim inal assault charges against the inmate who assaulted him .8 II . Discussion state a claim under allege laws violation U.S.C. 5 19831, a plaintiff must rights secured by the United States and deprivation was committed by law .'' Constitution demonstrate that person acting under Lefall v . Dallas Indep . Sch . Dist w prisoner does have criminally prosecuted'' of state F .3d - 1994) (citations omitted). alleged well established that constitutional right that there have someone private right action to bring crim inal charges .'' Back v . Texas Der't of Criminal Justice Correctional Institutions Div w - (citing Gill v. Texas, 2005)7 Oliver v. Collins, 904 F.2d also Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 716 App'x 255, 259 App'x. (5th 1990)); see 1146, 1149 (1973) (holding na private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest Sattler v . Johnson, 857 F.2d 227 1988) (rejecting an equal protection claim under 5 1983 because neither a member of the public at large nor the victim has a right to have 8=Id Brown does not otherwise articulate facts showing that he was denied due process or that he was discriminated against manner that poses an equal protection violation . Accordingly , this case will be dismissed for failure may be granted under state a claim upon which relief U .S .C . 5 1983. 111 . Conclusion and Order Based on the foregoing, the court ORDERS as follows : 42 U .S .C . 5 1983 filed the plaintiff, Michael Q. Brown (Docket Entry No. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice. The dismissal will count as 28 STRIKE purposes 5 1915(g). The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Memorandum Qpinion and Order to the plaintiff . The Clerk will also provide a copy of this order by regular mail or electronic mail to : (1) the TDCJ - Office of the General Counsel , P .O . Box 13084 , Au stin , Texas, 78711, Fax NlA-ner (512) 936-2159; and (2) the Three Strikes List at Three Strikes@txs .uscourts .gov . szGxEo at Houston , Texas, this QG day Juoew-b<e, 2oz8 S IM LA KE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE .

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.