Agnew v. Mansfield Police Dep't

Agnew v. Mansfield Police Dep't

Opinion

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

Plaintiff, an inmate confined in the Tarrant County Jail in Ft. Worth, Texas, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants are the Mansfield, Texas, Police Department and several named and unnamed Mansfield police officers. See Complaint, ECF No. 1 at 3.

Plaintiff claims that he was unlawfully arrested by Mansfield police officers as a result of racial profiling. See Complaint, ECF No. 1 at 3. He alleges that there was no probable cause for arrest with respect to state criminal case numbers 1429043 and 1433452. Id. He claims that, for no reason, he was taken to "JPS Hospital," that he was unlawfully confined, and that he lost his job as a result. Id. at 3, 7, 8. Plaintiff further alleges illegal custodial interrogation and unlawful search and seizure. Id. at 7. He claims that he was wrongfully charged with the offense of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon in state cause No. 1434387 and that arrest warrants relating to state cause numbers 1434386 and 1475324 lacked probable cause for his arrest. Id. at 10, 11. Additionally, Plaintiff claims that his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA")  [*2] were violated when he was denied legal representation and denied access to the courts. Id. at 8. Plaintiff asks to be compensated for pain and suffering, and for unlawful racial profiling by the Mansfield police officers. Id. at 4.

Complaints filed by pro se litigants may be dismissed as frivolous when they seek to relitigate claims premised upon substantially the same facts arising from a common series of events upon which the plaintiff has relied in a previous lawsuit, even if the previous suit remains pending. Pittman v. Moore, 980 F.2d 994, 995 (5th Cir. 1993); Wilson v. Lynaugh, 878 F.2d 846, 850 (5th Cir. 1989); see also Adele v. Rogers, 669 Fed. App'x 264 (5th Cir. 2016); Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995); Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988); Van Meter v. Morgan, 518 F.2d 366, 367-68 (8th Cir. 1975); Ballentine v. Crawford, 563 F.Supp. 627, 629 (N.D. Ind. 1983). Plaintiff's claims arise out of the same series of events that he relies upon in his previously filed civil rights action, Agnew v. ABE Factor & Campbell, No. 4:17-CV-527-Y (N.D. Tex. - Ft. Worth Division).

In the earlier case, Plaintiff claims that he was unlawfully arrested and detained, and that there was no warrant for his arrest. See ABE Factor & Campbell, Complaint, ECF No. 1 at 7, 10. And he seeks "relief surrounding circumstances of arrest." Id. at 12. In his prior case, Plaintiff states that he was wrongfully charged with violating a protective order and unlawful possession of a firearm. Id. at 7. In that case, Plaintiff states that his claims of unlawful search, [*3]  seizure, and arrest relate to state criminal case numbers 1429034, 1433452, 1434386, 1434387, and 1475324. Id. at 10. These are the same cases giving rise to Plaintiff's claims in the instant case. Additionally, Plaintiff has named four of the Defendants, Mansfield Police Department, Barry Moore, Officer Moran, and D. Burton in both cases. Thus, it is apparent that the instant case constitutes repetitive litigation. See Pittman v. Moore, 980 F.2d at 995 (noting that a plaintiff is entitled to "one bite at the litigation apple - but not more").

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.