Gregory
Perry (Plaintiff), a pro se Texas prisoner, filed
this suit on November 4, 2019, against “the State of
Texas Corporation” (Texas); the Texas Governor
(Governor); the Texas Attorney General (Attorney General)
the Dallas County District Attorney (District Attorney); and
the Warden of the unit where he is imprisoned (Warden)
(collectively, Defendants). (doc. 2 at 3.)
Plaintiff's
complaint claims that Texas, Governor, Attorney General, and
District Attorney failed to oversee and supervise the Dallas
District Attorney's Office, resulting in his false
imprisonment based on a 2002 aggravated robbery conviction.
(See id. at 4; see also doc. 14 at 6768)
https://inmate.tdcj.texas.gov/InmateSearch/viewDetail.action?sid=03794525
(confirming that Plaintiff is still imprisoned for the 2002
conviction) (last visited February 22, 2022).[2]
In an
82-page response to a Magistrate Judge's Questionnaire to
obtain more information
about his claims, Plaintiff elaborates that the United States
Constitution is a contract to which he is a party along with
Defendants. He claims that Defendants, themselves or through
superiors or subordinates, violated the contract, and, giving
his pleadings the most liberal construction, he asserts the
following claims:
• That Governor, Attorney General, District Attorney,
Warden, and Texas violated Article I, Section 8, Clauses 4
and 6 of the Constitution by failing to collect debts owed to
Plaintiff and by failing to punish the counterfeiting of
securities, including the bond in his underlying criminal
case. (See id. at 2, 20, 37, 53, 64-65.)
• That Governor, Attorney General, District Attorney,
Warden, and Texas have failed, in contravention of Article I,
Section 8, Clause 10 of the Constitution, to “define
and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high seas,
and Offences against the law of nations.” (See
id. at 5, 23, 41, 65.)
• That Governor, Attorney General, and District Attorney
violated Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution by
emitting a bill of credit in Plaintiff's criminal case in
the form of his criminal bond. (See id. at 4, 22,
38.)
• That Governor violated Article I, Section 10 of the
Constitution by “the creation of a bond against
surety's account.” (See id. at 4.)
• That Governor, Attorney General, District Attorney,
and Warden have failed to perform their duties under Article
III, Section 2, Clause 1, of the Constitution, as public
ministers, and have also engaged in treason. (See
id. at 6, 24, 41, 42, 56, 57.)
• That Governor, Attorney General, District Attorney,
and Warden have failed under Article IV of the Constitution
to give full faith and credit to the public acts, records,
and judicial proceedings of other states; to ensure that
citizens of each state receive all privileges and immunities
of citizens in the several states; and to fulfill obligations
under the Fugitive Slave Clause. (See id. at 7, 8,
9, 25, 26, 30, 42, 57, 58.)
• That Governor, Attorney General, District Attorney,
and Warden have violated Article IV, Section 4 of the
Constitution, providing that the United States shall protect
the states from domestic violence and guarantee a republican
form of government. (See id. at 10, 40, 44, 59.)
• That Governor, Attorney General, and Warden deprived
Plaintiff of access to copies of the Corpus Juris Secundum,
Uniform Commercial Codes, Texas Business Code, tax and
revenue codes, and insurance codes, depriving him of his
ability to petition
the Government for redress. (See id. at 2-3, 21, 38,
53.)
• That the removal of the above-referenced books
violated Plaintiff's rights under the Tenth Amendment.
(See id. at 60.)
• That Governor and Attorney General violated
Plaintiff's First Amendment rights by curtailing the
material he could publish in court pleadings. (See
id. at 3, 21.)
• That Plaintiff has been held in involuntary servitude
in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment. (See id.
at 12, 28, 45.)
• That Governor violated the Fourteenth Amendment by
assuming or paying a debt in aid of insurrection or rebellion
against the United States. (See id. at 5.)
• That Governor, Attorney General, and District Attorney
violated Plaintiff's equal protection and due process
rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. (See id. at
12, 30, 46.)
• That Governor, Attorney General, and District Attorney
allowed the Texas habeas scheme's unconstitutional
statute of limitations to “stand.” (See
id. at 3, 21, 38.)
• That Governor, Attorney General, District Attorney,
Warden, and Texas violated various federal criminal statutes
including 18 U.S.C. §§ 3, 4, 892, and 894; 18
U.S.C. §§ 241, and 242, as well as Texas penal
statutes, including Texas Penal Code §§ 7.01, 7.02,
7.22, and 7.23, by, among other things, “the creation
and attachment of a bond against surety's account,”
furthering a general conspiracy, and by issuing extortionate
extensions of credit. (See id. at 3, 5, 21, 22, 38,
39, 54, 65.)
• That Governor, Attorney General, District Attorney,
and Warden violated Plaintiff's rights under the False
Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq. by issuing
an extortionate extension of credit in the form of a medical
co-pay, by “the creation and attachment of a
bond against surety's account,” and by allowing
Plaintiff to be used as a tax asset “under the bond
[Texas] created against [Plaintiff] upon conviction.”
(See Id. at 4, 5, 21, 22, 23, 38, 54.)
• That Texas violated the False Claims Act by
“allowing agents” to create a “false
security/bond” that “attached” to
Plaintiff's conviction. (See id. at 65.)
• That Governor, Attorney General, and District Attorney
violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968 by
placing Plaintiff's criminal bond into Texas's
possession. (See id. at 4, 22, 39.)
• That Governor, Attorney General, and Warden forced
Plaintiff to make a medical co pay, which operates as an
unconstitutional bill of attainder. (See id. at 5,
23, 54.)
• That no “police report, complaint, or
indictment” related to Plaintiff exists, thus
nullifying his conviction. (See id. at 4, 22, 39.)
• That Plaintiff's criminal conviction is an
unconstitutional bill of attainder, in which Plaintiff has
supplied “collateral to contract,” in the form of
his own “flesh and blood.” (See id. at
4, 22, 40.)
• That Governor has failed to make adequate laws, rules,
and regulations to protect Plaintiff and similarly-situated
citizens from false imprisonment by violations of his
subordinates. (See id. at 8.)
• That Governor, Attorney General, and District Attorney
have willfully ignored court rulings that a judgment
(presumably, Plaintiff's criminal conviction) is void
based upon jurisdictional defects or violations of due
process. (See id. at 13, 31, 48.)
• That Attorney General has failed to keep Plaintiff and
other citizens free from false arrest through his failure to
control his subordinates-including district attorneys and
wardens-and by giving poor legal counsel to Governor and
Warden. (See id. at 26.)
• That Governor, Attorney General, and District Attorney
violated Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 20.012, a
repealed statute, by failing to keep proper records from
Plaintiff's criminal proceedings, resulting in his false
imprisonment. (See id. at 10, 28, 39.)
• That Governor, Attorney General, and District Attorney
violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Tex. Bus,
& Com. Code § 1746, et seq. by placing
Plaintiff's criminal bond in Texas's
“possession” and by failing to protect him.
(See id. at 4, 7, 25, 39.)
• That Governor, Attorney General, District Attorney,
and Warden violated Plaintiff's rights under the Texas
Uniform Commercial Code, by failing to protect him and
removing the above-referenced books from the law library.
(See id. at 7, 25, 42, 55.)
• That Governor, Attorney General, District Attorney,
and Warden have engaged in insurance fraud in violation of
Texas law. (See id. at 7, 25, 42, 54.)
• That the bond in Plaintiff's criminal case was not
announced through a pleading or in open court, in violation
of Texas criminal procedure. (See id. at 13, 31,
48.)
• That Attorney General and District Attorney violated
their obligations under the Rules of Professional Conduct.
(See id. at 30, 47.)
(See doc. 14.) Plaintiff confirmed in his responses
to the questionnaire that he seeks, at least in part,
to challenge the validity of his 2002 aggravated robbery
conviction. (See id. at 67-68.) He also seeks
various injunctions and $300,000,000.00 in compensatory
damages. (doc. 14 at 15-17, 32-34; doc. 2 at 4.) No process
has been issued.
II.
PRELIMINARY SCREENING
Because
Plaintiff, a prisoner, has been granted permission to proceed
in forma pauperis, his complaint is subject to
preliminary screening under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and
1915(e)(2), which provide for sua sponte dismissal
if the Court finds the complaint “frivolous or
malicious” or if it “fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted.” Courts follow the same
analysis in determining whether a complaint fails to state a
claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) as when ruling on a
motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). See Hale v
King, 642 F.3d 492, 497 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curium). A
complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted when it fails to plead “enough facts to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,...
