Bean v. State

1

JOSEPH LEE BEAN, Plaintiff, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, et al, Defendants.

No. 2:23-CV-00039

United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Corpus Christi Division

April 13, 2023

MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

MITCHEL NEUROCK, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Joseph Lee Bean, appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this prisoner civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff's case is subject to screening pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

The undersigned recommends that Plaintiff's § 1983 claims against the State of Texas for money damages and injunctive relief be DISMISSED without prejudice as barred by the Eleventh Amendment, that Plaintiff's § 1983 claims for money damages against Officer Juarez in his official capacity be DISMISSED without prejudice as barred by the Eleventh Amendment, and that Plaintiff's remaining due process claims against Assistant Warden Juan J. Nunez (“Warden Nunez”), inmate Wayne Douglas Harris (“Offender Harris”), and Officer Peter Juarez (“Officer Juarez”) be DISMISSED with prejudice as frivolous or for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The undersigned recommends further that the dismissal of this case count as a “strike” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).^[1]

A. Jurisdiction.

The Court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This case has been referred to the undersigned magistrate judge for case management and making recommendations on dispositive motions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636.

B. Background.

1. Plaintiff's § 1983 action.

Plaintiff is a prisoner in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division (TDCJ-CID) and is housed at the McConnell Unit in Beeville, Texas. Plaintiff's allegations in this case arise in connection with his current housing assignment. In this action, Plaintiff sues the State of Texas, Warden Nunez, Offender Harris, and Officer Juarez. (Doc. No. 1, pp. 1, 3.) Liberally construed, Plaintiff generally claims that his due process rights were violated in connection with his placement in restrictive housing and the denial of his requests to be transferred from restrictive housing at the McConnell Unit to another unit. Id. at 4. Plaintiff seeks monetary relief in the amount of $800 billion and a unit transfer. Id.

2. Plaintiff's More Definite Statement.

As directed by the Court, Plaintiff filed a More Definite Statement to explain his claims in more detail. (Doc. No. 11.) The following representations were made in either Plaintiff's complaint (Doc. No. 1) or his More Definite Statement (Doc. No. 11).

Public records show that Plaintiff was convicted in Harris County of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance (cocaine) and was sentenced to sixty years in prison on December 11, 2002. See TDCJ Offender Search Website, available at https://inmate.tdcj.texas.gov/InmateSearch/viewDetail.action?sid=05282123 (last visited Apr. 11, 2023). Plaintiff arrived at the McConnell Unit on March 11, 2021. (Doc. No. 11, p. 1.) Plaintiff states that his current classification level is “State ap[pr]oved trusty, 4, 1A.” Id.

From the time he entered TDCJ custody until arriving at the McConnell Unit, Plaintiff has been found guilty of the following disciplinary offenses: refusing to obey an order; tampering with a lock mechanism; being out of place; assaulting a correctional officer; making a false statement; committing extortion; having an inappropriate relationship; possessing marijuana; and committing sexual misconduct. (Doc. No. 11, p. 1.) While housed at the McConnell Unit beginning on March 11, 2021, Plaintiff has been found guilty of the following disciplinary offenses: possessing contraband; assaulting a correctional officer; possessing a weapon; possessing marijuana; distilling fluid; being in a prohibited area; and committing extortion. Id. In June 2021, Plaintiff was first placed in what he describes as “administrative segregation, restrictive housing, [and] security detention.” Id. Plaintiff is currently housed in restrictive housing. Id.

With the exception of the conviction for possessing contraband, Plaintiff states that the other disciplinary convictions while housed at the McConnell Unit are false because he did not commit the underlying offenses. (Doc. No. 11, p. 1.) According to Plaintiff, Officer Juarez repeatedly stated that Plaintiff assaulted him on May 27, 2022, while Plaintiff was escorted up the stairs. Id. In addition, Plaintiff alleges that Officer Juarez then “had two assaults in court” and “ask[ed] for a 15 year sentence an[d] ¶ 35 year sentence.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff indicated that he did not appeal through the grievance process and that such appeals were to be held in “security detention.” Id. Plaintiff's conviction for assaulting Officer Juarez has not been overturned on appeal. Id.

When asked to define what he meant by the use of the word “employment,” Plaintiff replied that “[e]mployment are all pe[r]sons walking on wing hired on the McConnell Unit.” (Doc. No. 11, p. 2.) The undersigned construes this to mean correctional officers or other prison employees. Plaintiff then states that several officers caused “employment” to bring the following disciplinary cases against him: two cases for assault by Officer Juarez; one case for sexual assault by Officer Monosevais; three cases each for assault and possession of weapons by Officer D. Austin; an assault case by Officer Cruz; and a case for racketeering by Major Tanner. Id. According to Plaintiff, Offender Harris does not want Plaintiff to have trusty status “so money can be taken from a line 3.” Id.

Plaintiff indicates that several felony disciplinary cases were brought against him, citing cases for possessing marijuana, possessing weapons, and assaulting staff and correctional officers. (Doc. No. 11, p. 2.) Plaintiff was convicted of all felony cases involving Offender Harris. Id. None of Plaintiff's felony cases were overturned on appeal. Id.

With respect to his disciplinary cases, Plaintiff complains that “employment” placed untrue character statements into the record against him, such as statements indicating he was gay, a racist, a “five and one-half hoover,” a blood member, and a “hermat.”^[2] Id. Plaintiff further complains that his placement in restrictive housing is based on these false statements, which has led him to filing grievances at the unit as well as this complaint. Id.

Plaintiff alleges that he has filed 12 Step 1 and 12 Step 2 grievances asking to be transferred from restrictive housing at the McConnell Unit to another unit. (Doc. No. 11, p. 2.) He has also allegedly made verbal statements at a classification hearing seeking transfer. Id.

The Unit Classification Committee (“UCC”) allegedly denied Plaintiff a transfer, finding that insufficient evidence existed for an offender protection investigation. Id. at 3. On January 2, 2023, the State Classification Committee (“SCC”) allegedly denied Plaintiff “for promotion in class transfer.” Id. According to Plaintiff, the SCC denied Plaintiff a transfer because he had been given a “trustee status” and “for talking to rank an [sic] correctional officer and having trays pass to [him].” Id.

Plaintiff claims that the State of Texas has violated his constitutional rights by holding him unlawfully in restrictive housing and denying him access to the court though preventing Plaintiff from receiving incoming packages, transcripts, and lawsuit packages. (Doc. No. 11, p. 3.) Plaintiff claims that Warden Nunez is holding him captive by placing “his signature of authority on unit while employment was writing disciplinary cases and offenses seizing all [Plaintiff has].” Id. Plaintiff sues Warden Nunez in his individual capacity. Id.

Plaintiff claims that Offender Harris has worked with prison officials from “employment” to write disciplinary cases against him involving offenses that have caused Plaintiff to lose money to Offender Harris. Id. Plaintiff claims that Officer Juarez has obstructed justice by repeatedly writing false statements against Plaintiff which have interfered with his transfer from the unit or release. Id. Plaintiff sues Officer Juarez in his official capacity. Id.

C. Legal standard.

When a prisoner seeks to proceed in forma pauperis the Court shall evaluate the complaint and dismiss it without service of process if the Court finds the complaint frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (providing that a court shall review an in forma pauperis complaint as soon as practicable and dismiss it if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from an immune defendant). A claim is frivolous if it has no arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989). A claim has no arguable basis in law if it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, “such as if the complaint alleges the violation of a legal interest which clearly does not exist.” Davis v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1003, 1005 (5th Cir. 1998). A claim has no arguable basis in fact if “after providing the plaintiff the opportunity to present additional facts when necessary, the facts alleged are clearly baseless.” Talib v. Gilley, 138 F.3d 211, 213 (5th Cir. 1998).

“In analyzing the complaint, [the Court] will accept all well-pleaded facts as true, viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Jones v Greninger, 188 F.3d 322, 324 (5th Cir. 1999). “The issue is not whether the plaintiff will...