Heslep v. Thaler et al, No. 4:2015cv02595 - Document 7 (S.D. Tex. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER dismissing with prejudice 1 Complaint (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified. (aboyd, 4)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Heslep v. Thaler et al Doc. 7 United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED October 27, 2015 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION MATTHEW MARK HESLEP, TDCJ #1582892, § § § § § § § § § § Plaintiff, v. RICK THALER, et al., Defendants. David J. Bradley, Clerk CIVIL ACTION NO. H-15-2595 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The plaintiff, Matthew Mark Heslep (TDCJ #1582892), has filed a complaint violations under of his 42 civil U.S.C. rights 1983 § (Docket ("Complaint"), Entry No. alleging Because 1) . plaintiff is incarcerated, the court is required to scrutinize the claims and dismiss the Complaint, in whole or in part, if it determines that the Complaint "is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted" or "seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such ,i:-elief." § 1915A (b) . concludes After considering all of the pleadings, that this case must be dismissed for 28 U.S.C. the court the reasons explained below. I . Background Heslep is currently incarcerated by the Texas Department of Dockets.Justia.com Criminal Justice - Correctional Institutions Division ( "TDCJ") . The defendants are former TDCJ Director Rick Thaler and current TDCJ Director William Stephens. 1 Heslep also sues former State Attorney General and current Governor Greg Abbott and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. 2 Heslep's Complaint concerns the direct appeal from his state court conviction. Heslep discloses that his conviction was affirmed on June 2, 2011, and that he was notified of that decision on June 8, 2011. 3 Shortly thereafter, on June 14, 2011, the Wynne Unit Classification Committee placed Heslep on "Transit Status" pending his transfer to another unit. 4 Status until August 14, 2011. 5 Heslep remained on Transit While on Transit Status, Heslep had limited access to the law library and was subject to a "Book Mobile System" that Wednesday, books, was available and Friday) . 6 only three days a week (Monday, Because he had limited access to law Heslep claims that he was unable to file a petition for discretionary review ( "PDR") with the Texas 1 Complaint, Docket Entry No. 1, at 3. 2 Id. 3 Id. at 4. 4 Id. 5 Id. 6 Id. -2- Court of Criminal Appeals before the deadline expired on July 2, 2011. 7 On June 29, 2012, Heslep filed a state habeas corpus application requesting an out-of-time PDR, but the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied that request without a written order. 8 See Ex parte Heslep, Writ No. 77,915-01 available at the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Website, visited Oct. 27, 2015). http://www.search.txcourts.gov (last Heslep filed a federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254, § but that petition was denied and dismissed with prejudice on March 31, 2015. 9 See Heslep v. Thaler, Civil No. W-12-206 (W.O. Tex.). Heslep now asks this court to order the Texas Criminal Appeals to grant him an out-of-time PDR. 10 requests compensatory damages for "labor, Court of Heslep also expenses, and mental anguish." 11 II. Discussion Heslep's pro se pleadings are entitled to "less standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Kerner, 92 S. Ct. 594, 596 (1972). stringent Haines v. Liberally construed, Heslep contends that he was denied his constitutional right to access the 7 Id. 8 Id. 9 Id. lOid • 11 Id. -3- courts because of a limitation on law library access while he was in Transit Status at the Wynne Unit in 2011. Civil rights claims brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983 § are governed by the two-year statute of limitations provided by Texas law. See Piotrowski v. Cir. 2001); means Tex. that Civ. Prac. & Rem. allegations. a 237 F.3d 567, Code Ann. the plaintiff had two years claims accrued to file 1998) City of Houston, civil rights § 576 (5th 16.003(a). This from the time that his complaint concerning his See Gonzalez v. Wyatt, 157 F.3d 1016, 1020 (5th Cir. (noting that a cause of action accrues, so that the two-year statute of limitations begins to run, when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of the action). Heslep's claim arose no later than July 2, 2011, when his time to file a PDR with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals expired. The complaint in this case is dated August 23, 2015, 12 which is well outside the limitations period. Claims brought that are plainly barred by the applicable statute of limitations are dismissal as legally frivolous. subject to See Gartell v. Gaylor, 981 F.2d 254, 256 (5th Cir. 1993). Because Heslep clearly waited more than two his years from the time claims accrued to file suit, his complaint is untimely and will be dismissed as legally frivolous. 12 13 Complaint, Docket Entry No. 1, at 5. 13 Al ternati vely, the court notes that Heslep's request for leave to file an out-of-time PDR was denied by the Texas Court of (continued ... ) -4- III. Conclusion and Order Based on the foregoing, (Docket Entry No. 1) is the court ORDERS that the Complaint DISMISSED with prejudice as legally frivolous. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to the parties. The Clerk will also provide a copy by regular mail, facsimile transmission, or e-mail to: (1) the TDCJ - Office of the General Counsel, P.O. Box 13084, Austin, Texas, 18111, Fax Number (512) 936-2159; and (2) the District Clerk for the Ferguson, Eastern Tyler, District Texas, of Texas, Tyler Division, 211 West 15102, Attention: Manager of the Three- Strikes List. SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on f Oc...jo~er , 2015. SIM LAKE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 ( • • • continued) Criminal Appeals on state habeas review. See Complaint, Docket Entry No. 1, at 4; see also Ex parte Heslep, Writ No. 77,915-01 available at the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Website, http://www.search.txcourts.gov (last visited Oct. 27, 2015). Heslep does not allege facts showing that he was denied the right to present a non-frivolous claim in state court. Under these circumstances, Heslep fails to articulate an actual injury and he does not state a claim for denial of access to courts. See Lewis v. Casey, 116 S. Ct. 2174, 2182 (1996); Johnson v. Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 299, 310-311 (5th Cir. 1997). -5-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
