Allgood v. Curtis

• Decision Date: 28 June 2016
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:15-CV-2721
• Parties: CHRISTOPHER ALLGOOD, Plaintiff, v. STEPHANIE CURTIS, et al, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas

CHRISTOPHER ALLGOOD, Plaintiff,
v.
STEPHANIE CURTIS, et al, Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:15-CV-2721

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

June 28, 2016

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff Christopher Allgood filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Defendants Stephanie Curtis, Joyce Batson, and Jose Nava have all filed motions to dismiss. Batson also filed a motion for summary judgment. Allgood has responded to the motions. For the reasons stated below, the motions to dismiss by Curtis and Nava, and the motion for summary judgment by Batson, are granted, and plaintiff's claims are dismissed with prejudice.

I. Background

Allgood alleges that, on April 10, 2013, defendant Nava, a Texas Department of Criminal Justice ("TDCJ") Correctional Officer, confiscated Allgood's legal materials in violation of TDCJ policy. Plaintiff's More Definite Statement ("MDS") at 3. Nava informed Allgood that he was confiscating the papers because Allgood's personal property exceeded the volume of personal property permitted under TDCJ rules. Id. Allgood alleges that he did not receive proper paperwork for the confiscated property. Id. He further contends that TDCJ does not limit the amount of legal material an inmate can possess. Allgood further alleges that he needed the confiscated material to give proposed findings of fact to Texas' Fourth Court of Appeals concerning alleged mistakes in Allgood's trial. Id. at 4. Allgood contends that Nava's alleged actions violated Allgood's First

Page 2

Amendment right of access to the courts, and constituted a taking of Allgood's property without due process of law, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Defendant Curtis is the property supervisor at Allgood's unit. Allgood contends that she violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by improperly withholding and destroying his legal materials. Id. at 1.

At all times relevant to this case, defendant Batson was the District Clerk for Madison County, Texas. Allgood filed a lawsuit in the 278^th District Court of Madison County. Id. at 2, 4. He sent some documents, identified as an "Exhibit/Evidence package," to the Madison County District Clerk's Office. Allgood alleges that Batson did not enter his documents into the court record until after the 278^th District Court dismissed his case, and the Tenth Court of Appeals dismissed his appeal. He contends that Batson's alleged actions and omissions deprived him of his First Amendment right of access to the courts.

II. Analysis

A. Standard of Review

1. Motions To Dismiss

In reviewing a motion to dismiss under rule 12(b)(6), the complaint must be liberally construed in favor of the plaintiff, and all facts pleaded in the complaint must be taken as true. Campbell v. Wells Fargo Bank, 781 F.2d 440, 442 (5th Cir.1986). The standard of review under rule 12(b)(6) has been summarized as follows: "The question therefore is whether in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and with every doubt resolved in his behalf, the complaint states any valid claim for relief." 5 Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1357, at 601 (1969).

2. Motion for Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is appropriate when "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). In considering

Page 3

a motion for summary judgment, the "evidence of the nonmovant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). Once the movant presents evidence demonstrating entitlement to summary judgment, the nonmovant must present specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986).

B. Access to the Courts

Prison inmates have a First Amendment right of access to the courts. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977). This right requires that prison officials provide a reasonable opportunity to file non-frivolous legal claims. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 353-54 (1996). "While the precise contours of a prisoner's right of access to the courts remain somewhat obscure, the Supreme Court has not extended this right to encompass more than the ability of an inmate to prepare and transmit a necessary legal document to a court." Brewer v. Wilkinson, 3 F.3d 816, 821 (5^th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1123 (1994). To prevail on a claim of denial of access to the courts, a plaintiff must demonstrate actual harm. Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351.

1. Defendants Nava and Curtis

In order to prevail on this claim, Allgood must identify a non-frivolous, arguable underlying claim he wished to pursue. Johnson v. Ro...