Beach v. Armatys et al, No. 4:2019cv01278 - Document 9 (S.D. Tex. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER dismissing with prejudice 1 Complaint. Email sent to Manager of Three Strikes List. (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified. (aboyd, 4)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Beach v. Armatys et al Doc. 9 United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED II May 16, 2019 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION JOSEPH ANDREW BEACH, TDCJ #2149718, § § § § § § § § § § Plaintiff, V. FORT BEND COUNTY, et al., Defendants. David J. Bradley, Clerk CIVIL ACTION NO. H-19-1278 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER State inmate Joseph Andrew Beach (TDCJ #2149718) has filed a Prisoner's Civil ("Complaint") Rights (Docket Complaint Entry No. 1), under 42 U.S.C. regarding proceeding against him in Fort Bend County. a § state 1983 court Because Beach is a prisoner who proceeds in forma pauperis, 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, 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." 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2) (B). After considering all of the pleadings, the court concludes that this case must be dismissed for the reasons explained below. Dockets.Justia.com I. Background Beach is currently in custody of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Correctional Institutions Division ("TDCJ") as the result of a ten-year prison sentence that he received on July 11, 2017, for aggravated assault on a family member (two counts) in Fort Bend County Cause No. 15-DCR-070682A. 1 dated April 1, Aramatys, 2019, In a Complaint that is Beach sues Fort Bend County, and Beach's ex-wife, Judge Walter Christine Nicole Beach. 2 Beach claims that Judge Aramatys violated his constitutional rights under the Sixth Amendment during a proceeding conducted in the 328th District Court of Fort Bend County, Texas, which resulted in a protective order being entered against him on February 4, 2019. 3 Beach claims that his ex-wife committed perjury on the witness stand in order to obtain a "99 year protective order" to prevent Beach from seeing his 3-year old son. 4 Invoking 42 U.S.C. the protective order. 5 § 1983, Beach asks this court to overturn The court concludes, however, that this case must be dismissed because he cannot challenge the validity of of Criminal Justice, Offender See Texas Department Information, available at: https://www.offender.tdcj.texas.gov (last visited May 15, 2019). 1 2 Complaint, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 3. 3 See id. at 3, 4. 4 See id. at 4. -2- II. Discussion Beach asks this court to review and overturn a protective order entered against him by a state court. Challenges of to the validity of judgments entered in state court proceedings are barred by the Rocker-Feldman doctrine. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 44 S. Ct. 149 (1923); D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 103 S. Ct. 1303 (1983). Under this doctrine, courts of original jurisdiction, "federal district courts, lack appellate jurisdiction to review, modify, or nullify final orders of state courts." v. Morrow, 204 F.3d 613, 615 (5th Cir. 2000) and footnotes omitted) . as Weekly (internal quotations The doctrine applies to "cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review rejection Saudi Basic Indus. of those Corp., 125 Beach's allegations explicitly attack the validity of the judgments." Exxon Mobil Corp. v. and S. Ct. 1517, 1521-22 (2005). state court's judgment. Because Beach's claims are plainly barred from review in federal court, the Complaint will be dismissed as frivolous. See Kastner v. Texas Bd. of Law Examiners, 408 F. App' x 777, 779, 2010 WL 4347914 (5th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (concluding that the district court was correct to dismiss a complaint barred by the Rocker/Feldman doctrine as frivolous); Gant v. Texas, 123 F. App'x 622, 2005 WL 419505 (5th Cir. 2005) -3- (per curiam) (same). III. Conclusion and Order Based on the foregoing, the court ORDERS as follows: 1. The Prisoner's Civil Rights Complaint filed by Joseph Andrew Beach under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Docket Entry No. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice as legally frivolous. 2. The dismissal will count as a "strike" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (g). The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to the plaintiff and to the Manager of the Three Strikes List for the Southern District of Texas at Three Strikes®txs.uscourts.gov. SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this the 16th day of May, 2019. SIM LAKE 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.
