McNeal v. Gib Lewis Prison Unit et al, No. 4:2023cv02950 - Document 3 (S.D. Tex. 2023)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Cedric Dewayne McNeal's action is DISMISSED with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(l) for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. All other pending motions, if any, are DENIED as MOOT. Email sent to Manager of Three Strikes List. (Signed by Judge David Hittner) Parties notified.(JosephWells, 4)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
McNeal v. Gib Lewis Prison Unit et al Doc. 3 Case 4:23-cv-02950 Document 3 Filed on 08/14/23 in TXSD Page 1 of 6 United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED August 15, 2023 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION CEDRIC DEWAYNE McNEAL, (TDCJ #02317254) Plaintiff, vs. GIB LEWIS PRISON UNIT, et al., Defendants. § § § § § § § § § § Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CIVIL ACTION NO. H-23-2950 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Cedric McNeal, an inmate in the Texas Department of Criminal JusticeCorrectional Institutions Division ("TDCJ"), has filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that his prison grievances are being improperly handled by prison officials at the Gib Lewis Unit. (Dkt. 1). McNeal has neither paid the applicable filing fee nor filed a motion seeking to proceed in forma pauperis. Because McNeal is a prisoner seeking relief from the government, the Court is · required to screen his complaint as soon as feasible after docketing. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a); see also 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c) (providing for screening of suits by prisoners under § 1983). Based on the Court's screening, this action will be dismissed for the reasons explained below. First, this action was filed in the incorrect district. The applicable foderal 1/ 6 Dockets.Justia.com Case 4:23-cv-02950 Document 3 Filed on 08/14/23 in TXSD Page 2 of 6 venue statute provides that a civil action may be brought only in one of the following: (1) "a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located;" (2) "a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred ... ;" or (3) "ifthere is no district where the action may otherwise be brought ... , any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction with respect to such action." 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). McNeal filed this action in the Southern DistrictofTexas. However, McNeal is currently incarcerated in the Gib Lewis Unit of TDCJ, and he alleges that this harm occurred there .. (Dkt. 1). He also alleges that he suffered similar harm when he was atTDCJ's Bill Clements Unit. (Id. at 5). However, neither of these TDCJ units are located within the Southern District of Texas. The Gib Lewis Unit is in · Tyler County, Texas, which is located within the Eastern District of Texas, Lufkin Division. See 28 U.S.C. § 124(c)(6). The Bill Clements Unit is in Potter County, Texas, which is located within the Northern District of Texas, Amarillo Division. See 28 U.S.C. § 124(a)(5). It appears from McNeal's complaint that none of the acts giving rise to the alleged civil rights violations occurred in the Southern District of Texas, nor are the TDCJ Units or their employees who would be defendants located within this District. Therefore, the Court concludes that McNeal's complaint was not properly filed in this district and so is subject to dismissal. See Mayfield v. 2/ 6 Case 4:23-cv-02950 Document 3 Filed on 08/14/23 in TXSD Page 3 of 6 Klevenhagen, 941 F.2d 346, 348 (5th Cir. 1991). Second, while a district court has the authority to transfer a case to another district in which the action might have been brought, see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a), 1406, this Court in its discretion determines that the transfer of McNeal' s complaint to another judicial district would not be in the interest of justice because he is barred from proceeding with this action informa pauperis by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). As noted above, McNeal has not paid the filing fee applicable to civil rights complaints. And his action is governed by the Pris,on Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), which was enacted, in part, to prevent prisoners . from abusing the privilege of proceeding informa pauperis. See Coleman v. Tollefson, 575 U.S. 532, 535 (2015) (citing Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 204 (2007)). Under the "threestrikes rule" established in the PLRA, a prisoner may not proceed in forma pauperis in a civil action if, while incarcerated, three or more of his civil actions or appeals have been dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless he is· in "imminent danger of serious physical injury." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); see also Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez, 140 S. Ct. 1721, 1723 (2020) (noting that the three-strikes rule was enacted to "help staunch a 'flood ofnonmeritorious' prisoner litigation") (quoting Jones, 549 U.S. at 203). Court records reflect that, while incarcerated, McNeal has filed more than three actions that have been dismissed by the federal courts as frivolous or for failure 316 Case 4:23-cv-02950 Document 3 Filed on 08/14/23 in TXSD Page 4 of 6 to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. See McNeal v. Tex. Bd. of Probation & Paroles, et al., Civil No. A:..23-cv-502-DII (W.D. Tex. June 29, 2023); McNeal v. State of Tex., et al., Civil No. A-23-cv-084-LY (W.D. Tex. Mar. 20, 2023); McNeal v. Schaap, et al., Civil No. 2:22-cv-249 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 12, 2023); McNeal v. Schaap, et al., Civil No. 2:23-cv-29 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 12, 2023); McNeal v. Riley, et al., Civil No. 2:22-cv-85 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 12, 2023); see also McNeal v. Director, Civil No. 4:23-cv-2298 (S.D. Tex. June 29, 2023) (dismissing action as barred under § 1915(g)); McNeal v. S. Perez et al., Civil No. 4:23-cv-2608 (S.D. Tex. July 25, 2023) (same); McNeal v. S. Perez, et al., Civil No. 4:23-cv-2350 (S.D. Tex. July 26, 2023) (same). As a result, McNeal has incurred three strikes for purposes of the PLRA's three-strikes rule, and he is barred from proceeding with this civil action in forma pauperis unless the pleadings show that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. See§ 1915(g); Banos v. O'Guin, 144 F.3d 883, 884 (5th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). But McNeal 's complaint contains no allegations that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury, nor would the nature of his claims support such allegations. While McNeal makes ambiguous references to being targeted by the "Illuminati Satanic Secret Society Organization," these allegations are conclusory at best and have no connection to the claims he raises. See Prescott v.· UTMB Galveston Texas, 73 F.4th 315, 321 (5th Cir. 2023) (requiring a prisoner to show a connection 4/ 6 Case 4:23-cv-02950 Document 3 Filed on 08/14/23 in TXSD Page 5 of 6 or nexus between the alleged imminent danger and the allegations and claims _in the underlying action to be entitled to relief under § 1915(g)'s imminent danger exception); Chavis v. Chappius, 618 F.3d 162, 170 (2d Cir. 2010) (permitting a district court to reject allegations of imminent danger that are "conclusory or ridiculous" (quoting Ciarpaglini v. Saini, 352 F.3d 328, 331 (7th Cir. 2003))). Having failed to satisfy the exception to the three-strikes bar, McNeal may not proceed in forma pauperis in this action, and his complaint is dismissed for failing to pay the applicable filing fee. Third, even ifMcNeal satisfied the applicable fee requirements, his complaint would be dismissed because he fails .to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (requiring courts to screen prisoner complaints seeking relief against the government and dismiss those that fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted). McNeal 's sole claim is that prison grievances are being either improperly processed or not processed at all. But the Fifth Circuit has clearly held that an 'inmate does not have a federally protected interest in having prison grievances investigated and resolved to his satisfaction. See, e.g., Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 374 (5th Cir. 2005). And without such an interest, "any alleged due process violation arising from the alleged failure to investigate his grievances is indisputably meritless." Id.; see also Pratt v. Martinez, No. 22-40274, 2023 WL 3818380, at *2 (5th Cir. June 5, 2023) (plaintiff's "dissatisfaction with timing of the 516 Case 4:23-cv-02950 Document 3 Filed on 08/14/23 in TXSD Page 6 of 6 grievance procedures does not give rise to an actionable due process claim"). . . Because McNeal fails to allege a claim upon which relief can be granted, his complaint must be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(l). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 1. Cedric Dewayne McNeal's action is DISMISSED with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(l) for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 2. All other pending motions, if any, are DENIED as MOOT. The Clerk will provide a copy of this Order to the plaintiff. The Clerk will also provide a copy of this order to the Manager of the Three Strikes List for the Southern District of Texas at: Three_Strikes@txs.uscourts.gov. ~------~-~'-2~-----' 2023. SIGNED at Houston, Texas on ___ ~~ ~DA~R UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6/ 6
]]>
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.
