Peters v. Hohl et al, No. 4:2022cv01672 - Document 5 (S.D. Tex. 2022)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Peters complaint, (Docket Entry No. 1), is dismissed with prejudice. His motion to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee, (Docket Entry Nos. 2, 3), is denied under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Any other pending motions are denied as moot. The court certifies that any appeal from this order is not taken in good faith for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Email sent to Manager of Three Strikes List. (Signed by Chief Judge Lee H Rosenthal) Parties notified.(olindor, 4)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Peters v. Hohl et al Doc. 5 Case 4:22-cv-01672 Document 5 Filed on 06/07/22 in TXSD Page 1 of 2 United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION MICHAEL G. PETERS, (TDCJ #2019190), and D.G.P., a minor, Plaintiffs, vs. JEFF HOHL, et al., Defendants. § § § § § § § § § § June 07, 2022 Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CIVIL ACTION NO. H-22-1672 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER State inmate Michael G. Peters (TDCJ #2019190), representing himself and purporting to represent D.G.P., his minor child, has filed a prisoner civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on claims of conspiracy and false imprisonment. (Docket Entry No. 1). He alleges that the defendants—one an Assistant District Attorney and the other a private attorney—“conspired to cover up political, judicial, and corporate crimes” by intentionally wrongfully imprisoning him. (Id. at 4). His complaint contains no facts supporting these allegations. After reviewing the pleadings and Peters’ litigation history as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court dismisses this case for the reasons explained briefly below. Peters is no stranger to the federal courts, having had no less than 15 cases dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Based on Peters’ history of frivolous and abusive litigation, this court entered an order precluding him from “filing any new case in this District unless he first obtains written permission from a Judge of this District.” Peters, et al. v. Tex. Med. Bd., Civil No. H-22-59 (S.D. Tex. March 21, 2022). Despite this preclusion order, Peters filed his current case without obtaining such written permission. To the extent that this filing could be construed as seeking such written permission, it is denied. Given Dockets.Justia.com Case 4:22-cv-01672 Document 5 Filed on 06/07/22 in TXSD Page 2 of 2 Peters’ record of filing frivolous and abusive lawsuits and the clearly spurious nature of his current complaint, this court will not grant Peters permission to proceed with this action. Peters’ complaint, (Docket Entry No. 1), is dismissed with prejudice. His motion to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee, (Docket Entry Nos. 2, 3), is denied under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Any other pending motions are denied as moot. The court certifies that any appeal from this order is not taken in good faith for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). SIGNED on June 7, 2022, at Houston, Texas. _______________________________________ Lee H. Rosenthal Chief United States District Judge 2
]]>
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.
