Opinion
3:04-CV-2105-D.
January 27, 2005
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and an order of the court in implementation thereof, this case has been referred to the United States magistrate judge. The findings, conclusions and recommendation of the magistrate judge, as evidenced by his signature thereto, are as follows:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:
Type of Case: This is a civil rights action.
Parties: Plaintiff is John B. Williams. It appears Plaintiff was released from custody four days after filing the complaint, and is residing in San Antonio, Texas. (See Plaintiff's Response filed on October 25, 2004).
Defendants are Johnson County, Court Clerk David Lloyd, and Judge John Neill. The court has not issued process in this case. However, on November 1, 2004, the magistrate judge issued a questionnaire to Plaintiff who filed his answers on December 6, 2004.
Statement of Case: The complaint alleges Defendants conspired to dismiss three actions, which Plaintiff and other inmates had filed in Johnson County against Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), "to benefit their personal interests." (Complaint at 4 and Answer to Question 1). Defendants allegedly refused to allow communications between co-parties, failed to correspond with all litigants fairly, and failed to notify Plaintiff of an order filed on July 1, 2004, which required him to replead his allegations within thirty days. (Complaint at 4 and Answer to Question 2). As a result of the lack of notice, all actions were thereafter dismissed with prejudice. (Complaint at 4). Plaintiff requests that the three actions be reinstated, that they be classified as class actions, and that counsel be appointed to represent the class. (Id.).
Findings and Conclusions: The court has permitted Plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis. His complaint is, thus, subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), which imposes a screening responsibility on the district court. That section reads in pertinent part as follows:
Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . (B) the action or appeal — (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.").
The complaint may also be subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, because Plaintiff filed the same while he was a prisoner. In his response, filed on October 25, 2004, Plaintiff confirms that he was released from custody on October 2, 2004, four days after the filing of the complaint. (Plaintiff's Response filed Oct. 25, 2004, at prison document attached to page 2).
Section 1915(e)(2)(B) provide for sua sponte dismissal if the Court finds that the complaint is "frivolous" or that it "fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." A complaint is frivolous, if it "lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 1831-32, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted when it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 101-02, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957).
To obtain relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must prove two elements: (1) a deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and (2) a deprivation of that right by the defendant acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48, 108 S. Ct. 2250, 2254, 101 L.Ed. 2d 40 (1988).
Plaintiff's civil conspiracy claims lack an arguable basis in law. A claim for civil conspiracy requires allegations of facts sufficient to show that there was an agreement among the defendants to inflict a wrong or injury upon the plaintiff and an overt act that results in damages.Crowe v. Lucas, 595 F.2d 985, 993 (5th Cir. 1979). In the present case no allegations exist that would allow inference that Defendants conspired to deprive Plaintiff of any of his constitutional rights. Plaintiff's complaint, even when supplemented by the answers to the magistrate judge's questionnaire, does not present facts showing an agreement between the Defendants named in the complaint. See Hale v. Harney, 786 F.2d 688, 690 (5th Cir. 1986). Plaintiff does not allege that the Defendants ever met or talked about Plaintiff or any of the three civil actions that were pending in Johnson County. (Answer to Questions 6-9). He merely complains that letters mailed to the court, the court clerk, or the county attorneys by registered mail remain unanswered. (Answer to Question 9). There is a complete absence of any allegation of fact to show that the Defendants had any plan to hinder Plaintiff or any of three actions pending in Johnson County. "`Mere conclusory allegations of conspiracy cannot, absent reference to material facts,' state a substantial claim of federal conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1983." Hale, 786 F.2d at 690 (quoting Arsenaux v. Roberts, 726 F.2d 1022, 1024 (5th Cir. 1982)).
Insofar as Plaintiff seeks to allege a claim of denial of access to the courts, his assertion fares no better. The right to "adequate, effective, and meaningful" access to the courts imposes affirmative obligations on correction officials to assure all inmates access to the courts and assistance in the preparation and filing of legal papers. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828, 97 S.Ct. 1491, 1498, 52 L.Ed.2d 72 (1977). That right does not extend to court clerk's offices and judges as alleged in this case. Moreover, it is quite limited. "It encompasses only `a reasonably adequate opportunity to file nonfrivolous legal claims challenging . . . convictions or conditions of confinement.'" Johnson v. Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 299, 310-311 (5th Cir. 1997) (quoting Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 2182, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996)). In this case, the only dispute relates to alleged conduct of a court clerk and a judge following the filing of the action. Such a claim clearly falls outside the right to adequate access to the courts.
Alternatively, the relief requested — namely, that the three actions be reinstated and that they be certified as class actions with appointed counsel — is not cognizable in this civil rights action. Such requests would be more appropriately addressed by the trial court on a motion for reconsideration or for relief from judgment, or the state court of appeals in the event of an appeal.
Plaintiff has been given an opportunity to expound on the factual allegations of his complaint by way of questionnaire. See Eason v. Thaler, 14 F.3d 8, 9 (5th Cir. 1994) (requiring further development of insufficient factual allegations before dismissal under § 1915(d) is proper); Watson v. Ault, 525 F.2d 886, 892-93 (5th Cir. 1976) (affirming use of questionnaire as useful and proper means for court to develop factual basis of pro se plaintiff's complaint). Because he has failed to allege any cognizable claim for relief against the named Defendants under § 1983, the complaint should be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous. RECOMMENDATION:
For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
A copy of this recommendation will be mailed to Plaintiff John B. Williams, 2355 Austin Highway, No. 1001, San Antonio, Texas 78218-5906.