Welsh v. Lamb Cnty.
| Decision Date | 16 December 2020 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 5:20-CV-077-BQ |
| Parties | LONNIE KADE WELSH, Plaintiff, v. LAMB COUNTY, TEXAS, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas |
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, Lonnie Kade Welsh filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his constitutional rights in connection with state criminal charges initiated and pursued against him. Second Am. Compl 2-16, ECF No. 19. Welsh seeks monetary damages for his alleged injuries. Id. at 16-23.
Welsh filed his original Complaint on March 30, 2020. ECF No. 1. The United States District Judge granted Welsh's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (IFP) and transferred this case to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge. ECF Nos. 2, 8. The undersigned thereafter reviewed Welsh's operative Complaint[1] and authenticated records provided by Defendants and ordered Welsh to complete a questionnaire pursuant to Watson v. Ault, 525 F.2d 886, 892-93 (5th Cir. 1976), which he timely completed and returned. ECF Nos. 20, 23.
Not all parties have consented to proceed before the undersigned magistrate judge. In accordance with the order of transfer the undersigned makes the following findings, conclusions, and recommendations to the United States District Judge.
Section 1915(e) requires dismissal of an IFP complaint at any time if the court determines the complaint is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.[2] 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii); see Newsome v. E.E.O.C., 301 F.3d 227, 231-33 (5th Cir. 2002) (). A frivolous complaint lacks any arguable basis, either in fact or in law, for the wrong alleged. Neitzke v Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A complaint has no arguable basis in fact if it rests upon clearly baseless factual contentions, and similarly lacks an arguable basis in law if it embraces indisputably meritless legal theories. See Id. at 327. When analyzing a pro se plaintiffs complaint, the court may consider reliable evidence such as the plaintiffs allegations, responses to a questionnaire, and authenticated records. See Wilson v. Barrientos, 926 F.2d 480, 483-84 (5th Cir. 1991); see also Berry v. Brady, 192 F.3d 504, 507 (5th Cir. 1999) (); Banuelos v. McFarland, 41 F.3d 232, 234 (5th Cir. 1995) ().
In evaluating the sufficiency of a complaint, courts accept well-pleaded factual allegations as true, but do not credit conclusory allegations or assertions that merely restate the legal elements of a claim. Chhim v. Univ, of Tex. at Austin, 836 F.3d 467, 469 (5th Cir. 2016). And while courts hold pro se plaintiffs to a more lenient standard than lawyers when analyzing complaints, such plaintiffs must nevertheless plead factual allegations that raise the right to relief above a speculative level. Id. (citing Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376, 378 (5th Cir. 2002)).
Welsh asserts claims against the following Defendants: (1) Lamb County; (2) City of Littlefield; (3) Lamb County District Attorney Scott Say; (4) Assistant Lamb County District Attorney Ricki Redman; (5) and Littlefield Police Chief Ross Hester. Second Am. Compl. 2. Welsh sues all Defendants in their individual capacities, naming Defendants Say and Redman as principal agents and official policy makers for Lamb County and Defendant Hester and the Mayor (name unknown) as principal agents and official policy makers for the City of Littlefield. Id.
Welsh divides his Second Amended Complaint into seven counts for relief, described as follows:
1. Count I: false imprisonment and due process
Welsh claims he was falsely imprisoned by Lamb County, the City of Littlefield, and Ross Hester in violation of his due process rights. Id. at 13. Welsh was arrested for tampering with or fabricating physical evidence in violation of Texas Penal Code Sec. 37.09 on November 28, 2017, and subsequently convicted in May 2018. Id. at 2. A Texas state court sentenced Welsh to eleven years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ). Id. The entirety of Welsh's present suit stems from this conviction and subsequent appeal. See id.
According to Welsh, he was wrongly imprisoned from June 16, 2018, to August 6, 2019, because his conviction was overturned by the Texas Court of Appeals. Id. at 3; see Welsh v. State, 570 S.W.3d 963 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2019, pet. ref d). He alleges that his wrongful conviction “was a deliberate decision from the County and City policy makers to follow a course of action to be the moving force to violate [his] rights.” Second Am. Compl. 3. In support, he alleges that several violations of his procedural and substantive due process rights occurred during the prosecution. Id. at 6-7; Questionnaire 1, 14, 15[3] First, he claims Lamb County violated his procedural due process rights because it “prevented] [him] from presenting both capacity evidence and evidence of his insanity.” Questionnaire 5. Second, he claims Defendants Lamb County, the City of Littlefield, and Hester violated his due process rights “by manufacturing a criminal charge” because the underlying “facts of the case do [not] comport with the law” of his charge. Id. at 1. In addition, Welsh contends Defendant Redman improperly “used evidence of [his] sexual crimes to help turn the ire of the jury against him in opposition” to the court's orders. Second Am. Compl. 7; Questionnaire 15. Welsh further avers Defendants “Say and Redman conspired with a Chris Woods to dispose of physical evidence of a video tape that continuously videoed Welsh while in an administrative sell [sic] after the physical assault by Woods' staff.” Second Am. Compl. 7. Concluding his allegations, Welsh claims Defendants Say and Redman relied on Defendant Hester's perjurious testimony in obtaining the conviction. Id.; Questionnaire 14. Welsh asserts that Lamb County, the City of Littlefield, and Hester's conduct caused him “severe mental sickness of depression, anxiety, and sleepless nights due to worry, with the added physical illness causing pain by headaches and nausea . .., ”[4] Questionnaire 14.
2. Count II: unreasonable seizure without probable cause
Welsh contends that Defendants Lamb County, the City of Littlefield, and Hester violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure without probable cause. Second Am. Compl. 13. Specifically, he avers that Defendants subjected him to unreasonable seizure by confining him without probable cause in the Lamb County Jail from November 28, 2017 through June 26, 2018, and asking the State to confine him in TDCJ following conviction from June 26, 2018, through August 6, 2019. Id. at 3-4.
3. Count III: selective prosecution
Welsh claims that Defendants Lamb County, the City of Littlefield, and Hester selectively prosecuted him in violation of his equal protection and due process rights. Id. at 14. More specifically, Welsh avers that as a Sexually Violent Predator, he cannot be held criminally responsible because he is insane. Id. at 4. He alleges that Defendants Lamb County, the City of Littlefield, and Hester engaged in “discrimination within the law by only prosecuting the SVP insanity class” as “a policy, practice, or custom of' Lamb County. Id. When asked in a questionnaire to explain, Welsh responded that “defendants do not prosecute individuals] who commit similar offenses as Welsh who are mentally ill.” Questionnaire 6. According to Welsh, “Lamb County was deliberately indifferent adopting a decision to prosecute Welsh[]” and he was “maliciously singled out for criminal prosecution based on Lamb County's, City of Little Field [sic], and Ross Hester['s] discriminatory animus.” Second Am. Compl. 5.
4. Count IV: unconstitutional punishment 5. Count V: access to courts and due process
Welsh contends that Defendants Lamb County, the City of Littlefield, and Hester violated his right to access the courts by denying him the opportunity to file a non-frivolous legal claim. Id. at 15. In support, he avers that he accused Leslie Dimwiddie, Dustin Tirjerina, Arnulfo Hernandez, Jr., John Cochran, and Adam Peirce each of assault, but that Lamb County (through its principal agents and policy makers Say and Redman) and the City of Littlefield (through its agents the Mayor and Hester) refused to process his claims. Id. at 7-9. Similarly, he claims he accused “Cochran and Various [TCCC] employees” of using “unlawful restraints, ” but that Defendants again refused to process the claims. Id. at 9-10. Lastly, Welsh asserts he lodged complaints against John Cochran and Michael Searcy for sundry violations of the Texas Constitution and United States Constitution, but Defendants again allegedly refused to process the claims. Id. at 10-11. According to Welsh, this nonfeasance also violated his procedural and substantive due process rights. Questionnaire 32, 36.
6. Counts VI and VII: equal protection
As to counts six and seven, Welsh generally avers that Defendants violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection due to the above purported violations. Id. at 15-16. Welsh claims Def...
To continue reading
Request your trial