Kennedy v. Chief Circuit Court of Appeals et al, No. 4:2018cv03213 - Document 6 (S.D. Tex. 2018)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION denying 4 MOTION for Recusal, 2 APPLICATION to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Email sent to Manager of Three Strikes List. (Signed by Judge Alfred H Bennett) Parties notified.(gclair, 4)

Download PDF

Kennedy v. Chief Circuit Court of Appeals et al Doc. 6 United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED IN TH E UN IT ED STA TES DISTR IC T C O U R T FO R TH E SO UTH ERN D ISTR IC T O F TEXA S H O U STO N D IV ISIO N M ICHAEL ALLYN KEN NEDY, (TDCJ-CID #1516203) Plaintiff, October 09, 2018 David J. Bradley, Clerk j j j I j j clvll-Ac-rlok 14-18-3213 FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS,eta1.,j j Defendants. j M EM O R AN D U M A ND O PIN IO N M ichaelAllynKennedy,aTexasDepartmentofCriminalJusticeinm ate,suedin Septem ber 2018,alleging civilrights violations resulting from a denialof access to the courts. Kennedy, proceeding pro se,suesthe U nited StatesCourtofAppealsforthe Fifth Circuitand a1lU nited States districtcourtjudgesinTexas. The threshold issue is whether Kennedy's claim s should be dism issed as barred by outstanding sanctions. A lternatively,the Courtconsidersw hetherthiscase should bedism issed as frivolous.TheCourtconcludesthatK ennedy'sclaim sarebarredby outstanding m onetarysanctions, and,alternatively,thatthey lack m eritand should be dism issed forthe reasonsstated below . 1. K ennedy's A llegations Kennedy assertsthatthe U nited StatesCourtofAppealsforthe Fifth Circuitand allUnited Statesdistrictcourtjudgesin Texashavedeniedhim accesstothecourts.Hecomplainsthatthe Fifth Circuithasfailed to addresshisappealsand im properly im posed m onetary sanctionsin appeal numbers92-8594and93-4837.Hecomplainsthatthedistrictjudgesrefusedtoaddresshispetitions forhabeascorpus reliefin CivilA ction N um bers 6:14-498,6:18-50,and 6:18-67. K ennedy seeks Dockets.Justia.com punitive damagesof$1,000,000.00. lI. O utstanding Sanctions On June 17, l993,the U nited States Court of A ppeals for the Fifth Circuit sanctioned Kennedy in theam ountof$1,000.00 forfiling afrivolousappealinAppealNumber92-8594.The Fifth Circuitw arned K ennedy thatno furtherappealsw ould beaccepted untilhepaid the sanction. OnDecember16,1993,theFifth Circuitsanctioned Kennedy in the amountof$1,500.00 forfiling an altered docum entin AppealN um ber93-4837. O n October 20,1995,the Fifth Circuitbarred K ennedy from filing any pleadings in any Courtw ithin theFifth Circuituntilal1ofhispreviously im posed m onetary sanctionshad been paid. Kennedyv.Scott,95-00176(5thCir.Oct.20,1995).A review oftheCourt'srecordsindicatesthat K ennedy has failed to pay his outstanding sanctions. Thiscase isA D M IN ISTRA TIV ELY CLO SED pursuantto the sanction orderin Kennedy v. Scott,95-00176(5thCir.Oct.20,1995).Thedocketrecord forthatproceedingdoesnotindicate Kennedy has satisfied his sanctions. A ccordingly,K ennedy isnotauthorized to file a new action. Other than proof of satisfaction of sanctions,future subm issions w illbe neither addressed nor acknow ledged. 111. Analysis Altematively,theCourtfindsthatKennedy'sclaimslackmerit.Under28U.S.C.jl915A, federalcourts are authorized to review ,before docketing,if feasible,or in any event as soon as practicable afterdocketing,a com plaintin a civilaction in w hich a prisoner seeks redress from a governm entalentity or officer or em ployee of a governm ental entity. The coul't shall identify cognizable claim s or dism iss the com plaint,or any portion ofthe com plaiht,ifthe com plaint is frivolous,m alicious,orfailsto state aclaim upon which reliefmay be granted,orseeksmonetary relief from a defendantw ho is im m une from such relief. Section 19l5A governs this suitby a prisoner againsta prison official. A com plaintisfrivolousifitlacksan arguablebasisin law orfact.SeeD enton v.H ernandez, 504U.S.25,31(1992);Richardsonv.Spurlock,260F.3d495,498(5thCir.zoolltcitingSiglarv. Hightower,112F.3d 191,193(5thCir.1997)).$kA complaintlacksanarguablebasisinlaw ifitis based on an indisputably m eritless legaltheory,such as ifthe com plaintallegesthe violation ofa legalinterestwhich clearly doesnotexist.'' Davis v.Scott,157 F.3d 1003,1005 (5th Cir. l998)(quotingMccormickv.Stalder,105F.3d 1059,1061(5th Cir.1997)). Judgesareaffordedabsoluteimmunitywhentheyperform anonnaljudicialfunction,unless theyareactingintheclearabsenceofalljurisdiction.Stump v.Sparkman,435U.S.349,357-60 (1978).Ajudge'sjurisdictionisconstruedbroadly' ,ajudgeisnotdeprivedofimmunitybecausethe action hetook waserroneous,m alicious,orexceeded hisauthority. 1d.at357. The nature ofthe function perform ed governs the im m unity analysis. Forrest v. *rhite,484 U .S.219, 227-229 (1g88ltdenyingjudgeabsoluteimmunitywhenperfonningadministrativeratherthanjudicialduties). KennedychallengestheactsandomissionsofdistrictandappellatejudgesintheFifthCircuit who presided overproceedingsrelating to petitionsfor a writofhabeas corpus and civilrights com plaints K em wdy has filed in the Fifth Circuitand districtcourts. Review ing pleadings and imposingsanctionsarenormaljudicialfunctions.Thecivilactionsandappealswereproperlybefore thefederaldistrictandappellatecourts.Thecomplained-ofactsagainstdistrictandcircuitjudges aroseoutofthejudges'handlingofthecase. Therecordisclearthatthechallenged actsofjudgeswerejudicialacts.Kennedydoesnot allege,nordoestherecord support,a clearabsence ofjurisdiction on thepartofthesejudicial officers.Kennedy'sclaimsagainstthefederaldistrictandcircuitjudgeslackmeritbecauseKennedy is seeking relieffrom partiesw ho are im m une from suit. IV . Conclusion Kennedy'smotiontoproceedinformapauperis,(DocketEntryNo.2),isDENIED.The actionfiledbyM ichaelAllyn Kennedy(TDCJ-CID lnmate#1516203)isADM INISTRATIVELY CLOSED pursuanttotheoutstandingsanctionorderinKennedy v.Scott,95-00176(5thCir.Oct. 20,1995).Alternatively,hisclaimslackanarguablebasisinlaw.HisclaimsareDISMISSED with prejudiceunder28U.S.C.j 19l5A(b)(l).Kennedy'smotionforrecusal,(DocketEntryNo.4),is D EN IED . A ny rem aining pending m otionsare DEN IED asm oot. The Clerk willprovide acopy ofthisorderby regularm ail,facsim iletransm ission,ore-m ail tO' the TDCJ -O ffice ofthe GeneralCounsel,CapitolStation,P.O .Box 13084,A ustin, Texas78711,Fax:512-936-2159. , the lnm ate Trust Fund, P.O . Box 629, H untsville, Texas 77342-0629, Fax: 936-437-4793. ,and the M anager of the Three-strikes List for the Southern D istrict of Texas at: Three Strikes@ txs.uscourts.gov. SIGNED atHouston,Texas,on 0O1 C S 2212 A LFRED H .BEN NET UN ITED STA TES D 1S RICT JU D GE

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.