Martin v. Scott, 97-41242
| Citation | 156 F.3d 578 |
| Decision Date | 23 September 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 97-41242,97-41242 |
| Parties | Timothy P. MARTIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Wayne SCOTT, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice; Texas Board of Corrections; Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
Timothy P. Martin, Beeville, TX, pro se.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
Before JOLLY, BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
The plaintiff, Timothy P. Martin, is a Texas prisoner in administrative segregation. In his section 1983 suit against the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), the Texas Board of Corrections, and TDCJ Director Wayne Scott, Martin challenges the conditions of his administrative segregation on due process, equal protection, and Eighth Amendment grounds. 1 The magistrate reviewing Martin's complaint determined that it was frivolous and dismissed it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
On appeal, Martin claims that section 1915A does not apply to prisoners who are not suing in forma pauperis (IFP). In addition, Martin asserts that his complaint is not frivolous and that the magistrate abused her discretion by denying his motion to amend his complaint. We affirm.
Martin first contends that section 1915A does not apply to prisoners who are not proceeding IFP. The plain language of this section, however, indicates that it applies to any suit by a prisoner against certain government officials or entities regardless of whether that prisoner is or is not proceeding IFP. In pertinent part, section 1915A provides:
(a) Screening.--The court shall review, before docketing, if feasible or, in any event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a government entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
(b) Grounds for dismissal.--On review, the court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint--
(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 2 Thus, as a suit by a prisoner against state agencies and officers, Martin's complaint is clearly within the ambit of section 1915A and we join the Sixth and Tenth Circuits in holding that this section applies even when a prisoner has paid the required filing fee. See, e.g., Ricks v. Mackey, No. 97-3181, 1998 WL 133828, 141 F.3d 1185 (10th Cir. Mar. 25, 1998); McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608 (6th Cir.1997). Accordingly, the magistrate did not err by reviewing Martin's complaint under section 1915A.
We now turn to the question of whether Martin's complaint was frivolous. In his complaint, Martin contends that the additional restrictions imposed on those in administrative segregation violate his due process and equal protection rights and constitute cruel and unusual punishment. We review the magistrate's determination that Martin's complaint is frivolous for an abuse of discretion. Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir.1997). A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact, such as when a prisoner alleges the violation of a legal interest that does not exist. Id.
Martin's due process claim is frivolous. In Pichardo v. Kinker, 73 F.3d 612 (5th Cir.1996), we held that "absent extraordinary circumstances, administrative segregation as such, being an incident to the ordinary life of a prisoner, will never be a ground for a constitutional claim" because it "simply does not constitute a deprivation of a constitutionally cognizable liberty interest." Id. at 612-13. Because Martin complains about conditions that are far from "extraordinary," he has not alleged the violation of an existing due process interest.
Martin's equal protection claim is also frivolous. Significantly, Martin is not claiming that he is treated differently than others in his level of administrative segregation. Rather, he claims that he is treated differently than inmates in other levels of administrative segregation. The comparison made by Martin dooms his equal protection claim at the outset, for he does not take the position, which would likely be frivolous, that prisoners in different levels of administrative segregation are similarly situated for the purposes of equal protection analysis. Consequently, his complaint fails to implicate the Equal Protection Clause.
Like the other allegations in his complaint,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beshere v. Peralta
...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 dism......
-
Rodriguez v. Bexar Cnty. Hosp. Dist.
...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 Section 1915(e) an......
-
Diaz v. Tocci, CIVIL NO. SA-16-CA-356-DAE (PMA)
...by a prisoner may 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). Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) accords judges not only the authority to dismiss a claim ba......
-
Wingard v. Louisiana
...28 U.S.C. § 1915A authorizes dismissal on the referenced grounds regardless of the pauper status of the plaintiff. Martin v. Scott , 156 F.3d 578, 579-80 (5th Cir. 1998).34 Kelm v. 22nd Jud. Dist. Ct. of St. Tammany Par. , No. 19-728, 2021 WL 3674086, at *2 (M.D. La. June 28, 2021), report ......