Thomas v. Creuzot
| Decision Date | 29 December 2022 |
| Docket Number | 3:21-cv-02749-L (BT) |
| Parties | DEUNTAE THOMAS, Plaintiff, v. JOHN COLEMAN CREUZOT, et al. Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas |
DEUNTAE THOMAS, Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN COLEMAN CREUZOT, et al. Defendants.
No. 3:21-cv-02749-L (BT)
United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
December 29, 2022
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
REBECCA RUTHERFORD, MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pending before the Court are Plaintiff Deuntae Thomas's pleadings, including two documents entitled “Affidavit of Writ of Mandamus and Quo Warranto for the Extraordinary Relief” (ECF Nos. 3 and 10) that contain his substantive allegations. The Court gave Thomas permission to proceed in forma pauperis and withheld process pending judicial screening. The Court now recommends that Thomas's requests for mandamus and quo warranto relief, as well as his claims for monetary damages against the State of Texas, should be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and his remaining claims should be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Background
Thomas filed a “complaint” entitled “Affidavit of Writ of Mandamus and Quo Warranto for the extraordinary relief of Thomas:deuntae©” against a
variety of individuals, municipalities, and nonjural entities related to his arrest in 2021 by Dallas Rapid Area Transit (DART) police officers and his subsequent imprisonment and legal proceedings prior to the State dismissing the charges. See ECF No. 3. The Court issued a notice of deficiency, advising Thomas that his complaint failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). ECF No. 7. Thomas filed another “Affidavit of Extraordinary Writ of Mandamus and Quo Warranto for the Extraordinary Relief of Thomas:deuntae©,” ECF No. 10[1], which is mostly the same as the original filing but without the factual background.[2] Although his pleadings are at times difficult to understand and replete with sovereign citizen terminology-a discredited and frivolous legal theory addressed below-the essence of Thomas's allegations are as follows:
1. Encounter with DART officers
In late July 2021, Thomas purchased a ticket to ride a DART bus. Wearing a mask because of COVID-19 mandates, he boarded the bus. ECF No. 3 at 5. He took off his mask to drink a beverage. ECF No. 3 at 6. A DART bus driver ordered Thomas to put on his mask. ECF No. 3 at 6. Thomas refused, noting that other
passengers were not wearing masks. ECF No. 3 at 6. Thomas recorded a video of this “discrimination.” ECF No. 3 at 6.
DART police officer Villafuerte ordered Thomas to get off the bus. ECF No. 3 at 6. Villafuerte did not identify himself, show his authority as a DART officer, or tell Thomas why he had to get off the bus. ECF No. 3 at 6. Thomas started to record the encounter with Villafuerte and refused to get off the bus because Villafuerte “failed to articulate a valid reason.” ECF No. 3 at 6. Thomas believed that Villafuerte may have been “impersonating” a DART officer because Villafuerte did not disclose under what authority he was acting. ECF No. 3 at 6.
DART police officer A. Grimes then asked to see Thomas's fare. ECF No. 3 at 6. Thomas showed the officers his fare and continued to record the encounter. ECF No. 3 at 6.
At some point, the dispute turned to whether Thomas was required to wear a mask. ECF No. 3 at 6-7. Thomas claims that he was medically exempted from wearing one and references an executive order from Texas Governor Greg Abbott that prohibited governmental entities from mandating or requiring face coverings. See ECF No. 3 at 6-7. Thomas also pointed out to the officers that the bus driver and other passengers were not wearing masks. ECF No. 3 at 7. The officers continued to order Thomas to get off the bus. ECF No. 3 at 7-8. Thomas continued to refuse. ECF No. 3 at 8.
After his continued refusal to get off the bus, Villafuerte and Grimes “trespassed” Thomas; that is, they attempted to arrest him. ECF No. 3 at 8.
Thomas “valiantly” resisted the arrest. ECF No. 3 at 8. A third DART officer- officer Neal-arrived and “upon seeing the struggle” approached Thomas, pointed a gun at his stomach, and told him that he would shoot if Thomas continued to resist arrest. ECF No. 3 at 8.
Thomas stopped resisting. ECF No. 3 at 8. “They dragged” Thomas from the bus to the ground and searched him without his consent. ECF No. 3 at 8. “They” put Thomas in the squad car and searched his backpack. ECF No. 3 at 8. Thomas maintains that the officers should have seen documents from the Secretary of State for the United States of America Department of State “attesting to the fact” that he is an “American National” outside the officers' jurisdiction. ECF No. 3 at 8.
Thomas was booked in the Lew Sterrett Jail later that night. ECF No. 3 at 8. He was not read his Miranda rights. ECF No. 3 at 8. Nor did anyone take him to a magistrate judge immediately for an initial appearance. ECF No. 3 at 8.
2. Mistreatment at the jail
The alleged mistreatment continued at the Lew Sterrett Jail. Grimes “devised” with nurse practitioner Uzo A. Kunne to deprive Thomas of medical treatment for type 2 diabetes and hypertension when Thomas refused to sign a release form “in a manner and fashion to their liking.” ECF. No. 3 at 8. Kunne denied Thomas access to an unspecified type of medication and instead tried to force him to ingest medication containing pork byproducts, which Thomas, because of his religious beliefs, cannot ingest. ECF No. 3 at 8.
From July 29, 2021, to August 5, 2021, “all employees” of the jail that interacted with Thomas refused to provide him with medical treatment even though they knew of his ailments. ECF No. 3 at 8. At his processing, over 10 unidentified officers participated in “and/or allowed” Thomas to be tortured by putting him in a holding cell; choking him; attempting to break his arms and fingers so that he would submit to fingerprinting; using handcuffs to burn and scar his wrists and digging their nails into his arms; putting a black bag over his head during the “assault”; not letting him use his free phone call; putting him in solitary confinement for several hours; and with respect to Grimes in particular, continuing his verbal assault against him. ECF No. 3 at 9.
3. Judicial and Attorney Misconduct
When presented to Magistrate Judge David Antonio Woodruff, Thomas attempted to “discharge” the charges against him by referencing a March 2016 “United States Department of Justice publication.” ECF No. 3 at 9. Judge Woodruff did not accept Thomas's argument on this matter and “fraudulently attested” that Thomas is an African-American United States citizen, which stripped Thomas of his right to self-determination. ECF No. 3 at 9.
The County Criminal Court No. 5-through Judge Lisa Green Thorpe and Thomas's court-appointed attorneys, Andre Craig Jr. and Jesus Marquez-also wronged Thomas. Craig Jr. was ineffective, incompetent, and failed to comply with Thomas's “instructions.” ECF No. 3 at 9. Due to Craig Jr.'s misrepresentations, Thomas received a “no show” for a court date. ECF No. 3 at 10.
Craig Jr., Judge Thorpe, and County Criminal Court 5 conspired to deprive Thomas of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel and a fair trial by issuing bonds without his “participation” and appointing Marquez to represent him without his consent or knowledge after Craig Jr. was promoted to another position. ECF No. 3 at 10.
4. Request for a writ of quo warranto, termination of criminal proceedings, and requested relief
Thomas then asked Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to file a writ of quo warranto to test the right of all the state actors involved in his underlying criminal proceedings to hold their respective offices. ECF No. 3 at 10. But Paxton, through assistant attorney generals Thomas Albright and David Hacker, refused to instigate quo warranto proceedings on Thomas's behalf. ECF No. 3 at 10-11.
In March 2022, the State dismissed the criminal case against Thomas. See Texas v. Deuntae Thomas, M2116993 (Dallas Cnty. Crim. Ct. 5, March 9, 2022).
In these federal proceedings, Thomas seeks monetary damages, a quo warranto judgment removing the defendants from office who were involved in his underlying criminal proceedings, and mandamus relief requiring state officials to take various actions. See ECF No. 3 at 31; ECF No. 10 at 15-16.
Legal Standards and Analysis
Thomas's pleadings are subject to preliminary screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), pursuant to which a district court may summarily dismiss a complaint filed in forma pauperis if it concludes the action is: (1) frivolous or malicious; (2)
fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
To state a claim upon which relief may be granted, a plaintiff must “plead enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face[,]” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007), and must plead those facts with enough specificity “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level[.]” Id. at 555. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
1. Thomas lacks standing to assert a quo warranto action, and this Court lacks jurisdiction to mandamus state actors.
Thomas seeks quo warranto relief under Texas law. See, e.g., ECF No. 3 at 28-30; ECF No. 10 at 14. The purpose of a quo warranto proceeding is to question the right of a person or corporation, including a municipality, to hold a public franchise or office. Alexander Oil Co. v. City of Seguin, 825 S.W.2d 434, 436-37 (Tex. 1991). Quo warranto proceedings are brought in the name of the State by the attorney general or a district or county attorney. Tex. Civ...
To continue reading
Request your trial