Adeyinka v. Texas Department of Justice et al, No. 4:2018cv02782 - Document 3 (S.D. Tex. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER dismissing with prejudice 1 Complaint. (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified. (aboyd, 4)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Adeyinka v. Texas Department of Justice et al Doc. 3 United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED August 15, 2018 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION EMMANUEL ADEYINKA, § § § § § § § § § § Plaintiff, v. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al., Defendants. David J. Bradley, Clerk CIVIL ACTION NO. H-18-2782 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The plaintiff, Emmanuel Adeyinka, has filed a prose Complaint for Violation of Justice, the ("Complaint") Civil Rights City of against the Texas Department of Houston, the (Docket Entry No. 1) , Parole Board, and others alleging that he has been wrongfully required to register as a sex offender and participate in a sex offender monitoring program that requires him to take a polygraph as a condition of his parole. Because Adeyinka has not paid the filing fee, the court is required to scrutinize the claims and dismiss the Complaint, in whole or in part, if it determines that the Complaint "is frivolous or malicious; a § claim upon 1915(e) (2) (B). concludes that which relief may be [or] fails to state granted." 28 u.s.c. After considering all of the pleadings, the court this case must be dismissed for the reasons explained below. Dockets.Justia.com I. Discussion Court records reflect that Adeyinka was sentenced to two years in state prison in 2017 retaliation. June 27, following his conviction for criminal See Adeyinka v. Davis, Civil No. H-18-2157 (S.D. Tex. 2018) (Order of Dismissal, Docket Entry No. 3, p. 1). Following his release on parole Adeyinka claims that he has been required to register as a sex offender and to participate in a sex offender monitoring program because he has prior convictions from Philadelphia for indecent exposure (Court Summary, Complaint, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 7). attached to Arguing that the conditions of his release on parole are unconstitutional, Adeyinka now seeks $1, 777, 777.00 in damages for his emotional distress and mental anguish (Complaint, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 5). Under the rule in Heck v. Humphrey, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 2372 (1994), a civil rights plaintiff cannot obtain money damages based on allegations of "unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, 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 a state tribunal authorized to make such determinations, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus [under] 28 U.S.C. § 2254." The rule in Heck applies to complaints about the fact or duration of parole. -2- See Littles v. Board of Pardons and Paroles Division, 68 F.3d 122, 123 (5th Cir. 1995); see also Jackson v. Vannoy, 49 F.3d 175, 177 (5th Cir. 1995). Adeyinka does not allege facts showing that the challenged parole decision has been set aside or invalidated. Absent a showing that the disputed parole decision has been invalidated or set aside, Adeyinka's claim for money damages is precluded by the rule in Heck. See Littles, 68 F.3d at 123. As a result, the Complaint must be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under v. McElveen, 101 F.3d 423, 424 (5th Cir. § 1983. 1996) See Johnson (explaining that claims barred by Heck are "dismissed with prejudice to their being asserted again until the Heck conditions are met"). this case will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. II. § Accordingly, 1915 (e) (2) (B). Warning The court notes that Adeyinka has filed at least thirteen lawsuits in this district within the past three months. Of these lawsuits, at least four others have been dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state an actionable claim. See Adeyinka v. Harris County, et al., Civil No. H-18-1616 (S.D. Tex. May 18, 2018) (frivolous); Adeyinka v. Harris County Jail, et al., Civil No. H-18-1782 (S.D. Tex. July 13, 2018) (failure to state a claim); Adeyinka v. Harris County Jail, et al., Civil No. H-18-2161 (S.D. Tex. July 27, Department of Aug. 15, 2018) 2018) Public (frivolous); Adeyinka v. Houston Texas Safety, Civil (malicious). -3- No. H-18-2753 (S.D. Tex. Although Adeyinka is not a prisoner who is subject to the three-strikes rule found in the Prison Litigation Reform Act (the "PLRA"), 28 U.S. C. 1915 (g) , § which places restrictions on a litigant's eligibility to proceed in forma pauperis once he has three dismissals district courts for filing have frivolous inherent or authority malicious to lawsuits, sanction abusive litigants by imposing monetary penalties and other restrictions on their ability to file suit. S. Ct. 2123, 2131-38 Cir. 1993) See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 111 902 (5th (1991); In re Stone, 986 F. 2d 898, (courts possess the inherent power "to protect the efficient and orderly administration of justice," which includes "the power to levy sanctions in response to abusive litigation practices") at least (citations omitted). Because Adeyinka has now incurred four dismissals that would ordinarily disqualify a prisoner from eligibility for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, he is warned that further frivolous lawsuits may result in sanctions -- including monetary penalties and restrictions on his ability to file lawsuits in this court for abusing scarce judicial resources. III. Conclusion and Order Based on the foregoing, 1. the court ORDERS as follows: The Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights filed by Emmanuel Adeyinka (Docket Entry No. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2) (B) for failure to state an actionable claim. -4- 2. Adeyinka is WARNED that he may including monetary penalties and his ability to file lawsuits, if file meritless lawsuits in federal face sanctions, restrictions on he continues to courts. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to the plaintiff. SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 15th day of August, 2018. SIM LAKE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -5-
]]>
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.
