Henry v. Kerr Cnty.
| Decision Date | 02 May 2016 |
| Docket Number | NO. SA-16-CV-284-DAE (PMA),SA-16-CV-284-DAE (PMA) |
| Parties | JOSEPH AARON HENRY, TDCJ No. 1745887, Plaintiff, v. KERR COUNTY, TEXAS, KERR COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT., PHILIP KARASEK, JOHN LAVENDER, GARY CHAPMAN, DAVID MOTLEY, PHILIP S. JACOBS, E. BRUCE CURRY, LINDA UECKER, JANNETT PIEPER, ROBIN BURLEW. and HEATHER STEBBINS, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas |
JOSEPH AARON HENRY, TDCJ No. 1745887, Plaintiff,
v.
KERR COUNTY, TEXAS, KERR COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT.,
PHILIP KARASEK, JOHN LAVENDER, GARY CHAPMAN,
DAVID MOTLEY, PHILIP S. JACOBS, E. BRUCE CURRY,
LINDA UECKER, JANNETT PIEPER, ROBIN BURLEW. and
HEATHER STEBBINS, Defendants.
NO. SA-16-CV-284-DAE (PMA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
May 2, 2016
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Joseph Aaron Henry, currently an inmate at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice's Coffield Unit, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 naming as defendants the "County of Kerrville" the "Kerrville Sheriff's Department," and a variety of state court judges, prosecuting attorneys, defense attorneys, and various officials and employees of the Kerr County District Clerk's office. For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff's claims are subject to summary dismissal as frivolous.
Public records maintained by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and Kerr County District Clerk reveal that plaintiff was convicted (1) in Kerr
Page 2
County cause no. A92-385 for burglary of a building and sentenced February 18, 1993 to serve a ten-tear term of incarceration; (2) in Menard County cause no. 2011-02227 for the sexual assault of a child and sentenced October 27, 2011 to serve a twenty-year term of incarceration; (3) in Kerr County cause no. B11-160 of aggravated sexual assault of a child and sentenced November 8, 2011 to serve a twenty-year term of incarceration; (4) in Kerr County cause no. B10-607 for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and sentenced to serve a forty-five-year term of incarceration; and (5) in Kerr County cause no. B11-161 of prohibited sexual conduct and sentenced November 8, 2011 to serve a ten-year term of incarceration.
In his original complaint in this § 1983 action, filed March 18, 2016 (ECF no. 1), plaintiff (1) challenges the validity of his convictions in Kerr County cause no. A92-385 and Menard County cause no. 2011-02227; (2) alleges that on or about August 9-11, 1992, he was arrested without probable cause and subjected to excessive force (i.e., tortured by having his handcuffed hands yanked by law enforcement officers and by being placed in a hot patrol car with the windows up for several hours) by Kerr County Sheriff's Deputies; (3) alleges that following his arrest on or about August 10-11, 1992, he was not taken before a Magistrate within the time frame mandated by the Texas Family Code for juvenile offenders; (4) alleges Kerr County law enforcement officers failed to search the vicinity for evidence at the time of plaintiff's August, 1992 arrest for evidence which might have led to the identification and arrest or other suspects in the burglary; (5) alleges that he was coerced into confessing to the offense of burglary of a building by threats from law enforcement officers and unkept promises by prosecutors and his defense attorney that he would receive a probated sentence and would immediately be released from custody; (6) alleges his guilty plea to the burglary charge was involuntary because it was based on threats and an unkept offer of leniency and
Page 3
the ineffective assistance of his defense counsel; (7) alleges that on August 13, 1992 and September 18, 1992, prosecutors failed to disclose exculpatory information, including forensic evidence, to plaintiff's defense attorney in connection with cause no. A92-385; (8) alleges that following plaintiff's sentencing on or about November 19, 1992, the state district judge erroneously refused to allow plaintiff to withdraw his guilty plea; (9) alleges between July 2, 2013 and March 23, 2015, plaintiff was unable to retrieve copies of his records from the juvenile proceeding (Kerr County cause no. J92-53-A) which was later transferred to state district court where plaintiff was prosecuted as an adult (i.e., cause no. A920385) because officials and employees at the Kerr County District Clerk's office failed in 1999 and 2013 to properly maintain, or lost, or otherwise conspired to deprive plaintiff of access to those documents; (10) alleges there is legally insufficient evidence to support his burglary conviction; (11) alleges his defense attorney rendered ineffective assistance in connection with plaintiff's 1993 guilty plea in cause A92-385; (12) alleges Kerr County's prosecuting attorneys and the district judge conspired to have an incompetent attorney assigned to represent plaintiff in cause no. A92-385; (13) alleges his Kerr County conviction in cause A92-385 was declared void for want of jurisdiction in cause no. 2011-02227; (14) alleges Kerr County had a policy, practice, and custom of discriminating against plaintiff "as a class of one;" and (16) alleges the Kerr County District Clerk failed in 1999 and 2013 to respond to plaintiff's written requests that her office investigate the alleged loss or destruction of plaintiff's juvenile court records in cause J92-53-A. Plaintiff requests (1) an injunction forbidding the Kerr County District Clerk and her employees from impeding plaintiff's access to court records in his juvenile criminal proceeding ; (2) monetary damages in the amount of ten million dollars from the "County of Kerrville" [sic] and "Kerrville Sheriff's Department" [sic], four million dollars from various state district judges and
Page 4
prosecuting attorneys, and one million dollars from the Kerr County District Clerk and employees of that office; (3) punitive damages in the amount of two million one hundred thousand dollars; (4) an order directing state officials to comply with various provisions of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code; and (5) a jury trial on the original burglary charge previously adjudicated as cause no. A92-385.
In a Show Cause Order issued March 23, 2016 (ECF no. 3), the Magistrate Judge informed plaintiff of various deficiencies in his original complaint and instructed plaintiff to file an amended complaint addressing those deficiencies.
On April 18, 2016 (ECF no. 4), plaintiff filed his first amended complaint and alleged therein that (1) his conviction in cause no. A92-385 was voided on or about October 24, 2011; (2) he filed an original mandamus action in the Texas Fourth Court of Appeals; (3) he wishes to drop all of his claims against Judges Ables and Stacy;1 (4) his rights under the Texas Family Code were violated by various Kerr County deputies at the time of his arrest in 1992 and in the hours immediately thereafter; (5) David Motley failed to properly investigate the criminal charge against plaintiff, failed to divulge unidentified exculpatory evidence, and employed false police reports to guarantee plaintiff's detention from August 13, 1992 through September 18, 1992; (6) E. Bruce Curry failed to verify plaintiff's waiver of jurisdiction and stood mute when Judge Ables refused to permit plaintiff to withdraw his guilty plea; (7) Judge Barton voided plaintiff's conviction in 2011;
Page 5
(8) attorney Philip Jacobs rendered ineffective assistance to plaintiff in connection with a state criminal proceeding that involved a hearing held December 23, 1992 and conspired with prosecutors and the judge to change plaintiff's plea and have plaintiff convicted; (9) officer Karasek arrested plaintiff ; (10) officers Karasek, Lavender, and Chapman were all present at the time and place of plaintiff's arrest and watched a fellow officer manhandle plaintiff and then place plaintiff in a hot vehicle for over two hours without contacting plaintiff's parents as required by the Family Code; (11) plaintiff sent more than twenty pleadings to defendants Uecker, Pieper, and Burlew which were struck or possibly lost because those defendants failed to follow established procedures, i.e., losing files and striking pleadings without proper authority; (12) defendant Pieper failed to return a file to the County District Clerk's office in a Menard County hearing before Judge Berton in October, 2011; (13) defendant Stebbins subsequently wrote plaintiff to inform him the file in question was not in the custody of the Kerr County District Clerk's office,; (14) the Kerr County Sheriff's Department and Kerr County allowed their employees to "bend" established statutes in unspecified ways, i.e., to "target undesirables and discriminate against minorities and children; and (15) plaintiff was forced to take a plea and denied the opportunity to withdraw his plea.
When Congress enacted the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 ("PLRA"), it specifically amended 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and added § 1915A to provide that a complaint filed by a prisoner could be dismissed as frivolous regardless of whether any filing fee or portion thereof had been paid. Martin v. Scott, 156 F.3d 578, 579-80 (5th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 527 U.S. 1041 (1999). Therefore, Plaintiff's claims herein are subject to review under § 1915(e) and dismissal as frivolous regardless of whether he paid any portion of the filing fee in this cause. See Ruiz v. United
Page 6
States, 160 F.3d 273, 275 (5th Cir. 1998) (holding the federal district courts are required to dismiss any action brought by a prisoner that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a cause of action, or seeks monetary damages from a defendant who is immune from such relief); 42 U.S.C. §1997e(c).
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) accords judges not only the authority to dismiss a claim based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complainant's factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31-32 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989); Schultea v. Wood, 47 F.3d 1427, 1434 (5th Cir. 1995). In an action filed in forma pauperis, a court may raise sua sponte the issue of whether an...
To continue reading
Request your trial