Jackson v. Stamps

1

JERRY A JACKSON, JR., Plaintiff, v. JUSTIN STAMPS, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 4:21-cv-769-SDJ-KPJ

United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Sherman Division

March 3, 2023

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

KIMBERLY C. PRIEST JOHNSON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pending before the Court are Defendant Texas State Park Police Officer Rick Parks's (“Officer Parks”) Amended Motion to Dismiss (the “Parks Motion”) (Dkt. 14), and Pilot Point Police Department Corporal Justin Stamps (“Officer Stamps”) and Pilot Point Police Officer Brad Nunez's (“Officer Nunez,” and together with Officer Stamps and Officer Parks “Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss (the “Stamps and Nunez Motion”, and together with the Parks Motion, the “Motions to Dismiss”) (Dkt 17). Plaintiff Jerry A Jackson, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) filed a response (Dkt. 25) to the Motions to Dismiss (Dkts 14, 17); and Officer Stamps and Officer Nunez filed a reply (Dkt. 26). For the reasons that follow, the Court recommends the Parks Motion (Dkt. 14) and the Stamps and Nunez Motion (Dkt. 17) be GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

On October 4, 2021, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this lawsuit against Defendants. See Dkt. 1. Plaintiff alleges Officer Stamps violated Plaintiff's rights by falsifying a report, racial profiling, conducting an illegal search and seizure, theft of property, and failing to render aid. See Dkt. 1 at 3. Plaintiff further alleges Officer Nunez and Officer Parks violated Plaintiff's rights by conducting an illegal search and seizure, theft of property, and failing to render aid. See id. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges the following:

I was traveling Southbound on Hwy 377 when my headlight went out[.] So I turn[e]d on my hazard light and pulled [to] the nearest business to check my lights. That[']s when my wife noticed a police car slowly pass us and park down the road from us. I was unable to fix the lights and was close to our destination[,] so we decided to drive to [our] destination up the street . . . Officer Justin Stamps pulled in be[hind]. . . This is when Officer Justin Stamps decided to turn his lights on and initiate a wellness stop because the [h]azard lights were still on . . . Officer Stamps stated the reason he stopped us was because the hazard lights were on and he was doing a wellness stop to make sure everything was okay. I told the officer we were having problems with our headlights and were [j]ust up the street from our destination. At this point Officer Stamps asked for our I.D., instead of rendering aid.

After we complied Officer Stamps returned to the car and asked me to step out the car. When I reached for my seatbelt[,] Officer Stamps immediately grab[bed] for his gun saying what are you grab[b]ing for? I put my hand up and said my seatbelt[,] you just asked me to step out the car. That[']s when I took my seatbelt off and got [out of] the car [and] my wife stayed in the car. [Officer Stamps] ask[ed] me unrelated question[s] to the wellness stop [and] he showed no interest in helping me and my wife with the car. [Officer Stamps] asked me several[] times are you sure the car isn't stolen . . . [Officer Stamps] let [Plaintiff's wife] and her [d]ad go back and for[th] from one car to the other[,] unloading and loading things into the other car.

After they were done[,] Officer Nunez showed up and started to search the car immediately without my consent. My wife had left with her [d]ad to drop off her things. Officer Parks of TPWD showed up at this point and again I was questioned about my car being stolen. Officer Stamps joined Officer Nunez in searching my car again without my consent. Officer Stamps stop[p]ed his search of my car and placed me in handcuffs and put me in the back of his car. Befor[e] I was put in the back of the car[,] I was searched by Officer Stamps and my money was t[aken] and he threw it on the ground. Officer Stamps ask[ed] me if my wife could take my car home[.] I said yes. Later, my wife told me that Officer Stamps told her that everything in that car belong[]s to him now, when she went back to pick up the car. This included my phone, [t]ablet, [d]eb[i]t cards and other items. My car was [s]eized and towed illegally leaving my wife stran[d]ed in Pilot Point at or about 2 [a.m.]

Id. at 4-7. Plaintiff requests the following relief: “Compensation for my stolen property as well as ment[a]l and [e]motional stress in the amount [of] 10 million USD.” Id. at 4.

On July 21, 2022, Officer Parks filed the Parks Motion,^[1] wherein Officer Parks argues Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because Plaintiff fails to state a claim, Officer Parks is entitled to qualified immunity, and Plaintiff's claims are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). See Dkt. 14 at 2-7.

Officer Parks argues, “Plaintiff's sole allegation against Officer Parks, that [Officer] Parks questioned Plaintiff about whether Plaintiff's car was stolen, is an ‘unadorned, the defendant unlawfully-harmed-me' accusation which cannot form the basis of a constitutional claim.” Id. at 4. Officer Parks argues Heck bars Plaintiff's claims because Denton County Jail records show that Plaintiff failed to comply with his obligation to register as a sex offender on February 2, 2021; Plaintiff was booked into Denton County Jail by Pilot Point Police on March 21, 2021, pursuant to a Dallas County warrant and new drug and firearm charges; and Plaintiff pleaded guilty to charges for Violation of Sex Offender Registration in the 462nd District Court on April 28, 2022.

See id. at 6. Officer Parks further argues:

There is no allegation or evidence that Plaintiff's conviction and sentence has been reversed, invalidated, expunged, or called into question by a federal writ of habeas corpus. This Court therefore cannot enter judgment against Officer Parks for any claim implicating the propriety of Plaintiff's arrest without also implying the invalidity of the standing criminal conviction resulting therefrom.

Id. at 6-7.

On August 29, 2022, Officer Stamps and Officer Nunez filed the Stamps and Nunez Motion (Dkt. 17), wherein they argue Plaintiff's claims are barred pursuant to Heck and Plaintiff's claims for false arrest, seizure of property, and failure to render aid do not overcome Officer Stamps and Officer Nunez's entitlement to qualified immunity. See id. at 10-15. Officer Stamps and Officer Nunez argue Plaintiff's allegations stem from Plaintiff's arrest on March 21, 2021 (the “March 21, 2021 Arrest”), which ultimately led to his plea agreement on April 28, 2022, in State of Texas v. Jerry Antonio Jackson, Jr., Case No. F21-1696-462, in the 462nd District Court of Denton County. See Dkt. 17 at 5, 9. Attached to the Stamps and Nunez Motion are the following: Jail Records Search Results, see Dkt 17-1; Criminal Case Records Search Results, see Dkt. 17-2; Probable Cause Affidavits signed by Officer Stamps and dated March 21, 2021, see Dkt. 17-3; Denton County Booking Sheet dated March 21, 2021, see Dkt. 17-4; “Defendant's Acknowledgement of Alleged Offenses, Rights and Bonds” dated March 21, 2021, see Dkt. 17-4; Jail Records Search Detail, see Dkt. 17-5; State of Texas v. Jackson, Jerry Antonio, Jr., No. 21-600607-A, Magistrate's Order of Commitment After On-View Arrest dated March 21, 2021, see Dkt. 17-6; State of Texas v. Jackson, Jerry Antonio, Jr., No. F21-1696-462, Criminal Case Docket, see Dkt. 17-7; Criminal Indictment, No. F21-1696-462, see Dkt. 17-8; State of Texas v. Jackson, Jerry Antonio, Jr., No. F21-1696-462, Plea Bargain Agreement dated April 28, 2022, see Dkt. 179; and State of Texas v. Jackson, Jerry Antonio, Jr., No. F21-1696-462, Judgment of Conviction by Court-Waiver of Jury Trial, see Dkt. 17-10.

On November 1, 2022, the Court ordered Plaintiff file his response to the Motions (Dkts. 14, 17), as Plaintiff had not yet filed his response and the deadline to respond to the Motions was September 12, 2022. See Dkt. 24. On November 23, 2022, Plaintiff filed his response to the Motions, entitled “Motion of Objection to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss” (Dkt. 25), wherein he argues Defendants violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights “due to (Police IllegalSearch and Seizure) on the issue no probable cause was sustained, thence the ground[s] for a search and seizure did not exist, thereby depriving the Plaintiff [of his] constitutionally protected right[s].” Id. at 1. Plaintiff argues, “Defendant[s] are not entitled to qualified immunity because there is a dispute [because] Defendant[s] did not have Plaintiff's consent to search his property (car) and reasonable suspicion was not sufficient to enter the vehicle when consent had been denied.” Id. Officer Stamps and Officer Nunez filed a reply (Dkt. 26), wherein they argue Plaintiff's response ignores the Heck bar and Plaintiff does not overcome qualified immunity. See generally Dkt. 26.

On December 29, 2022, Plaintiff filed the Motion for Leave to Amend (Dkt. 28), wherein Plaintiff asserts the following:

Plaintiff Jackson [r]espectfully petitions the Court to grant [l]eave pursuant to Rules of [Federal] Civil Procedure Rule 15(2) Other Amendments. The Court should freely give leave when [j]ustice so [r]equires.

[F.] R. C. P. Rule 15

Pursuant to [F.] R.[]C.P. Rule 15(c)(1)(B) and (2)(d) Supplemental Pleadings. The Court may permit supplementation[.] The original pleading is defective in stating a claim [for] relief [that] can be granted upon.

Id. at 1. On December 30, 2022, Officer Stamps and Officer Nunez filed a response in opposition (Dkt. 29) wherein they argued Plaintiff's request for leave should be denied because the Motion for Leave to Amend did not explain why leave...