Jefferson v. State of Texas, No. 4:2019cv03497 - Document 6 (S.D. Tex. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Email sent to Manager of Three Strikes List. (Signed by Judge Gray H Miller) Parties notified.(gclair, 4)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Jefferson v. State of Texas Doc. 6 United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED IN TH E U M TED STATES D ISTRICT CO UR T FOR TH E SOU TH ER N DISTR ICT O F TEX AS H OU STO N D IVISIO N October 29, 2019 David J. Bradley, Clerk K AREEM ROSCHARD JEFFERSON, Plaintt, C1v1L ACTION N O.11-19-3497 STATE OF TEXAS, Defendant. M EM ORANDUM O PN ON Ae O RDER H arrisCounty pretrialdetainee Kareem Roschard Jefferson,a/k/aKareem Roshard Jefferson,a/k/aRichardJefferson,a/k/aBenjaminBrown,filed thisprosesection 1983 lawsuitcomplaining of violations of his constitutional rights. lle proceeds in f/rpaz pauperis and nam esasdefendantsthe State of Texas and H arrisCounty. Having considered the com plaint,m attersofpublic record,and the applicable law , the CourtDISM ISSES this law suitfor the reasons thatfollow . Background and Claim s Plaintiff isin pretrialcustody ofthe H arris County Sheriff's O ffk e aw aiting trial on felony charges forthe assaultof AlexanderRam os,a public servant. He claim s that hew asnotbroughtbefore a m agistrate orgiven hisM iranda warnings. He furtherclaim s he wasunaware he had been form ally charged or thatbailhad been set,and thathe w as appointed counselw ithouthis consent. Plaintiff further contends thatH arris County is guilty of negligence in its training and supervision,and that itencourages a custom of Dockets.Justia.com physical,verbal,andemotionalabuse. Hedoesnotallegethatheincurredanyinjuryas a resultofthe negligence orcustom . Plaintiffseeks m onetary dam agesand Gwide spread changesin policy.'' Analysis W hen a prisoner proceeds in w4bn?' ?u pauperis in a civilaction,the Court shall evaluate the com plaintand dism iss itw ithoutservice ofprocess ifthe Courtfindsthatthe com plaintis frivolous,m alicious,fails to state a claim upon w hich reliefcan be granted, orseeksmonetary relieffrom adefendantwho isim munefrom such relief.28 U.S.C.jj 1915A,1915(e)(2)(B). A claim isfrivolousifithasno arguable basisin 1aw orfact.N eitzke v.W illiams, 490U .S.319 (1989).A claim hasno arguablebasisinlaw ifitisbased onan indisputably m eritless legaltheory,tçsuch as if the com plaint alleges the violation of a legalinterest which clearly doesnotexist.'' Davisv.Scott,157 F.3d 1003,1005 (5th Cir.1998). A claim has no arguable basis in fact if Rafter providing the plaintiff the opportunity to presentadditionalfacts when necessary,the facts alleged are clearly baseless.''Talib v. Gilley,138 F.3d 211,213 (5th Cir.1998). Clailns Barred by Sovereign Imm unity Plaintiff's claim s for m onetary dam ages againstthe State of Texas are barred by sovereign im m unity and are DISM ISSED W ITH PREJU DICE. See PennhurstState Sch. & Hosp.v.Halderman,465 U .S.89,100-01 (1984). M oreover,because the State of Texasis notliable for any custom s prom ulgated orpracticed by H arris County as to the Harris County Jail,plaintiffallegesno viable claim under section 1983 againstthe State ofTexas. ClaintsBarred by H eck Plaintiffclaim sthathe wasnotçtM irandized.'' The Courtconstruesthisallegation asraising aclaim forviolation ofM iranda v.Arizona,384 U .S.436,475 (1966). Any failureoflaw enforcem entauthoritiesto read plaintiffhisM iranda warningsdoesnotraise a viable section 1983 claim atthis tim e. Because plaintiff seeks m onetary dam ages for alleged wrongfulpretrialdetention prem ised on a M iranda violation,hisclaim isbarred by Heckv.Humphrey,512 U .S.477,486-87 (1994). See,e.g.,Bicklnan v.Blair,2000 W L 1056096,at*1(5th Cir.2000).Plaintiff'sclaim isDISM ISSED W ITH PREJUDICE to being asserted again untilthe H eck conditionsarem et. Johnson v.M cElveen,101F.3d 423,424 (5th Cir.1996). ProceduralD ue Process Plaintiffalleges thathe was notbroughtbefore a m agistrate,w asunaw are he had been form ally charged or thatbailhad been set,and was appointed counselwithouthis consent.These allegationsofproceduraldue process violations are refuted by state court recordsordo notraise an issue offederalconstitutionaldim ension. A review ofpublic online courtrecordsin Statev.Jeyerson,Cause No.1626298 pending in the 178th D istrict Court of H arris County, Texas, shows that a crim inal complaintwasfiled againstplaintiffon March 29,2019. Plaintiffwasinjailcustodyat the tim e on other crim inal charges. The com plaint alleged that plaintiff struck the complainant,AlexanderRamos,whilethecomplainantwassecuringprisonersatthejail. Plaintiffw as notpersonally broughtbefore a m agistrate for a probable cause hearing as he wasalready in custody on othercrim inalcharges. H e wasappointed counselon April 1,2019,and counselresetplaintiff's arraignm enthearing dates. The record show s that plaintiffwaslaterindictedandwaspersonallyservedacopyofhisindictmentwhileinjail on July 1,2019. The record furthershow s thatplaintiffwas aware bailhad been set,as he filed a pro se m otion to reduce the bond am ounton A ugust22,2019. To the extent plaintiff complains that he was appointed counsel without his consent, he has no constitutional right to be appointed counsel of his choice. See,e.g., United States v. Conlan,786 F.3d 380,391 (5th Cir.2015). Plaintiff's motion to waive counseland proceed pro se in his crim inalprosecution rem ainspending before the state court. Plaintiff's factual allegations fail to state a viable claim for which relief can be granted under section 1983, and these claim s are DISM ISSED W ITH PREJU DICE. Custom or ptpf/cy Claim Plaintiff further contends that H arris County encourages a custom of physical, verbal,and em otionalabuse. He seeksm onetary dam ages as wellasunspecified Kwide spread''policy changes. The 1aw isclear thatallegations regarding threats or verbalabuse,even iftrue,do notstate claim s ofconstitutionalsignificance. See Orange v.Ellis,348 F.App'x 69,72 (5th Cir.2009);M cFadden v.Lucas,713 F.2d 143,146 (5th Cir.1983). Consequently, plaintiff's allegations as to verbal and em otional abuse do not rise to the level of a constim tionaldeprivation,and no viable claim is raised under section 1983. A municipality suchasHarrisCounty maybeliableundersection 1983 where t<(1) an officialpolicy (2)promulgatedby themunicipalpolicymaker(3)wasthemoving force behind the violation ofa constitutionalright.'' H icks-Fields v.H arris County,Texas,860 F.3d803,808(5thCir.2017);seealsoM onellv.Dep'tofsocialSenices,436U.S.658, 694 (1978).ttofficialklocal-governm entlpolicy includesthedecisionsofagovernm ent's lawm akers, the acts of its policym aking officials, and practices so persistent and widespread asto practically have the force oflaw .'' Connick v.Thompson,563 U .S.51, 60 (2011);seealso Peterson v.City ofFortWorth,Tex.,588 F.3d 838,850 (5th Cir. 2009). Thus,forpurposesofthislawsuit,plaintiffm ustplead factualallegationssufficient to raise a viable claim thatHarris County had a custom or officialpolicy ofencouraging thephysicalabuseofjaildetainees,thatthepolicywaspromulgatedbyanamedmunicipal policym aker,and that the policy w as the m oving force behind a violation ofplaintiff's constitm ionalrights. Plaintiffdoesnotplead facttlalallegations ofa policy m aker orthat hewasphysically ùjured asaresultofthe purported policy orcustom. To theextent otherdetaineesmayhavebeenphysicallyinjured,plaintiffhasnostandingtoraiseclaims forinjuriesincurredbyotherdetainees.Asaresult,plaintiffpleadsnofactualallegations show ing thatthe alleged custom orpolicy was the m oving force behind a violation ofhis constitutionalrights. Plaintiff's allegations againstH arris County failto raise a viable claim for relief under section 1983. The claim s are D ISM ISSED W ITH PREJU DICE as to claim s regarding verbaland em otionalabuse and D ISM ISSED W ITH O UT PREJUDICE as to claim sregarding physicalabuse. State Law Claims Plaintiffraisesclaim sofnegligence againstH arrisCounty.N egligence isbased in state law , and does notraise a cognizable federald aim for purposes of section 1983. Under28 U .S.C.j 1367(c)(3),a districtcourtm ay decline to exercise supplementalor pendentjurisdictionoverastate1aw claim whenithasdismisseda11claimsoverwhich it hasoriginaljurisdiction.SeeCarnegie-M ellon Univ.v.Cohill,484U.S.343,350(1988), . seealso Enochsv.LampasasCbl/n/y,641F.3d 155,161(5th Cir.2011)(explainingthat the rule in the Fifth CircuitGis to dism iss state claim s w hen the federalclaim s to which they are pendentare dism issed''). Because the Court is dism issing a1lof plaintiff's federal claim s, it declines to exercisesupplementalorpendentjurisdictionoveranystate1aw claimsraisedbyplaintiff. 6 Conclusion For the above reasons,the CourtORD ERS asfollow s: 1. Plaintiff's claims ajainst the State of Texas are DISMISSED W ITH 2. Plaintiff's claim s againstHarrisCounty forviolation ofhisM iranda rights are DISM ISSED W ITH PREJU DICE to theirbeing asserted again untilthe H eck conditions are m et. 3. Plaintiff's claim sagainstH arrisCounty forviolationsofhisproceduraldue process rights are D ISM ISSED W ITH PREJU DICE for failure to state a viable claim for reliefunder section 1983. 4. Plaintiff'sclaim s againstH arris County prem ised on a custom or policy of encouraging verbal and em otional abuse are D ISM ISSED W ITH PREJU D ICE. PREJU DICE for fallure to raise a viable claim , prem ised on sovereign im munity. Plaintiff's claim s againstH arris County prem ised on a custom orpolicy of encouraging physicalare D ISM ISSED W ITH OUT PREJU DICE. 6. Any and a11pending m otionsare D EN IED A S M O OT. The dism issalof this law suitconstim tes a Rstrike''for purposes of section 1915(g). The Clerk is directed to provide a copy ofthis order to plaintiff. The Clerk w ill also provide a copy of this order by regular m ail or e-m ail to the M anager of the Three-strikesListforthe Southern D istrictofTexas,atThree Strikes@ txs.uscourts.gov. Signed atHouston,Texason O ctober28,2019. ray . ller Senior U 'ted States 'trictJudge 7
]]>
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.
