Opinion
No. 3-06-CV-0115-L.
February 13, 2006
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This case has been referred to the United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and a standing order of reference from the district court. The findings and recommendation of the magistrate judge are as follow:
I.
This is a pro se civil rights action brought by Ricky Scott Field, a former inmate in the Hunt County Jail, against Joe Leonard, a state district judge. On January 18, 2006, plaintiff tendered a complaint to the district clerk and filed an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Because the information provided by plaintiff in his pauper's affidavit indicates that he lacks the funds necessary to prosecute this case, the court granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and allowed the complaint to be filed. A Spears questionnaire then was sent to plaintiff in order to obtain additional information about the factual basis of this suit. Plaintiff answered the questionnaire on February 10, 2006. The court now determines that this action should be summarily dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
See Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985).
II.
Plaintiff was charged with causing injury to an elderly person arising out a domestic dispute between him and his grandmother. During his trial, the judge overheard plaintiff trying to explain to his attorney that the complaining witness was hard of hearing. The judge angrily demanded that plaintiff remain silent. When plaintiff continued his conversation with defense counsel, which became hostile and disruptive, the judge cited plaintiff for contempt of court and incarcerated him for 30 days. The underlying criminal case was eventually dismissed.Plaintiff now sues the trial judge for civil rights violations based on "a long history of judicial bias and discrimination." (Plf. Compl. at 3, ¶ 22). By this suit, plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that the judge violated his constitutional right to a fair trial and to be free from false imprisonment. Plaintiff also seeks a judgment declaring his contempt conviction null and void.
A.
A district court may summarily dismiss a complaint filed in forma pauperis if it concludes that the action:
(1) is frivolous or malicious;
(2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or
(3) seeks money relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). An action is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 1831-32, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989); Henson-El v. Rogers, 923 F.2d 51, 53 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 2863 (1991). A complaint fails to state a claim "if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations." Hishon v. King Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73, 104 S.Ct. 2229, 2232, 81 L.Ed.2d 59 (1984). The court must assume that the facts set forth in the complaint are true. See Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 164, 113 S.Ct. 1160, 1161, 122 L.Ed.2d 517 (1993). However, dismissal is proper where "even the most sympathetic reading of [the] pleadings uncovers no theory and no facts that would subject the present defendants to liability." Jacquez v. Procunier, 801 F.2d 789, 791-92 (5th Cir. 1986).
B.
Plaintiff has sued a state district judge for civil rights violations arising out of his conviction and incarceration for contempt of court. A party may not maintain a civil rights action based on the legality of a prior criminal proceeding unless a state court or federal habeas court has determined that the terms of confinement are in fact invalid. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 2372, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). The critical inquiry is whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would "necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence." Id., 114 S.Ct. at 2372. If so, the claim is barred unless the conviction has been reversed or declared invalid. Id.; Hainze v. Richards, 207 F.3d 795, 798 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 121 S.Ct. 384 (2000). This rule applies to contempt proceedings. See, e.g. Sarlund v. Anderson, 205 F.3d 973, 974 (7th Cir. 2000) (citing cases); Crenshaw v. Jones, No. 3-02-CV-0953-H, 2003 WL 21662824 at *2 (N.D. Tex. Jul. 14, 2003).
In his interrogatory answers, plaintiff admits that he never challenged his contempt conviction on direct appeal or state collateral review. ( See Spears Quest. #4). Because no court has ever determined that the terms of his confinement were invalid, plaintiff is precluded from maintaining a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Celestine v. 27th Judicial District Court, 70 Fed.Appx. 232, 2003 WL 21729414 at *1 (5th Cir. Jul. 25, 2003), cert denied, 124 S.Ct. 1465 (2004) ( Heck bars declaratory judgment action challenging validity of state criminal conviction).
Plaintiff mistakenly believes that he can only challenge his conviction for contempt of court in a federal declaratory judgment action or civil rights action. Such is not the case. Under Texas law, a contempt conviction is subject to review by a petition for writ of habeas corpus. See Witcher v. Bennett, No. 06-05-00069-CV, 2006 WL 42232 at *1 (Tex.App.-Texarkana, Jan. 10, 2006), citing Deramus v. Thornton, 333 S.W.2d 824, 827 (Tex. 1960).
RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff's complaint should be summarily dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party may file written objections to the recommendation within 10 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). The failure to file written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Services Automobile Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996).