Opinion
No. 3:04-CV-0927-K.
December 13, 2004
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and an order of the court in implementation thereof, this case has been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge. The findings, conclusions and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, as evidenced by his signature thereto, are as follows:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:
Type of Case: This is a civil rights complaint brought by a county inmate pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Parties: Plaintiff is presently confined at the Dallas County Jail in Dallas, Texas. Defendants are the Dallas County Sheriff's Department. The court has not issued process in this case. On August 26, September 8 and October 4, 2004, the magistrate judge issued questionnaires to Plaintiff who has filed his answers thereto.
Statement of Case: The complaint, as supplemented by the answers to the questionnaires, alleges Plaintiff was falsely arrested and imprisoned on November 4, 2003, on the basis of an arrest warrant issued on September 14, 2003, for robbery. A jury subsequently acquitted Plaintiff of the robbery charge. He seeks monetary damages.
Findings and Conclusions: The court has permitted Plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis. His complaint is, thus, subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which imposes a screening responsibility on the district court. Section 1915A reads in pertinent part as follows:
The court shall review . . . as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity [and] [o]n review, the court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint (1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief."28 U.S.C. § 1915A (emphasis added). See also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Both sections 1915A(b) and 1915(e)(2)(B) provide for sua sponte dismissal if the Court finds that the complaint is "frivolous" or that it "fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." A complaint is frivolous, if it "lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact."Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 1831-32, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted when it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 101-02, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957).
Plaintiff names as defendant the Dallas County Sheriff's Department. (Complaint at 1 and 3). It is well settled that a plaintiff may not bring a civil rights claim against a servient political agency or department unless such agency or department enjoys a separate and distinct legal existence. See Darby v. Pasadena Police Dep't, 939 F.2d 311, 313 (5th Cir. 1991). In Darby, the Fifth Circuit held that "unless the true political entity has taken explicit steps to grant the servient agency with jural authority, the agency cannot engage in any litigation except in concert with the government itself." Id. Plaintiff has failed to show that the Dallas County Sheriff's Department have ever been granted the capacity to sue or be sued. Nor has he named a person or entity that can be sued for civil rights violations under § 1983. (See Questionnaire filed on October 4, 2004, and answers filed on October 22, 2004). Thus, Plaintiff's suit seeks relief from an entity that is not subject to suit under § 1983.See id. at 314.
Even assuming Plaintiff had named a suable entity or individual, the court concludes that his false arrest and false imprisonment claims lack an arguable basis in law. The Fourth Amendment requires that a probable cause determination be made either before or promptly after arrest as a condition for any significant pretrial restraint of liberty. Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 142-43, 99 S.Ct. 2689, 2694, 61 L.Ed.2d 433 (1979). A person who is arrested pursuant to a valid warrant is not entitled to a separate judicial determination that there is probable cause to detain him prior to trial. Id.
Plaintiff was arrested pursuant to a warrant. (Answer to questions 2 and 5, filed on September 3, 2004, and answers to supplemental question 1, filed on September 24, 2004). He makes no claim that the warrant was invalid. Plaintiff's only argument in challenging his arrest appears to be that he was innocent of the offense charged. Absent some argument that the arresting officer lacked probable cause, Plaintiff cannot succeed on his false arrest claim. See Fields v. City of South Houston, 922 F.2d 1183, 1189 (5th Cir. 1991) (holding there is no cause of action for false arrest under § 1983 unless the arresting officer lacks probable cause). The Constitution does not guarantee that only the guilty will be arrested. If that were the case, every defendant acquitted and every suspect released would have a cause of action under § 1983. Such is not the case. Baker, 443 U.S. at 145.
Next Plaintiff claims that he was unlawfully confined in the Dallas County Jail for approximately seven months. (Answer to question 2 of the supplemental questionnaire, filed on September 24, 2004). In support of this claim, Plaintiff appears to argue that, because he did not commit the crime, he should not have been detained. Unfortunately, this claim must fail. As previously discussed, the constitution does not provide that only the guilty will be arrested.
RECOMMENDATION:
For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A, 1915(e)(2)(B).
A copy of this recommendation will be mailed to Plaintiff.