Johnson v. Thaler et al
Filing
69
ORDERED that the Plaintiff's objections are overruled and the 64 Report and Recommendation is adopted as the opinion of the District Court. Ordered that the Plaintiff's second 63 motion for relief from judgment be and hereby is denied. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 7/9/2012. (bjc)
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUFKIN DIVISION
JESSIE L. JOHNSON
§
v.
§
RICK THALER, ET AL.
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:11cv8
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ON PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff Jessie Johnson, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C.
§1983 complaining of alleged violations of his constitutional rights. The case was referred to the
undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and (3) and the
Amended Order for the Adoption of Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United States
Magistrate Judges.
Johnson says that in July of 2009, he was in the process of being legally adopted by another
inmate, Daniel Johnson. Jessie Johnson is black and Daniel Johnson is white. Johnson complains
that he was subsequently transferred off of the Eastham Unit, away from his adoptive father,
wrongfully and as an act of retaliation.
The lawsuit was dismissed, after an evidentiary hearing, on July 15, 2011. The Defendants
were not served and no answer was filed. Johnson did not appeal, but filed a motion for relief from
judgment on August 24, 2011. This motion was denied on October 14, 2011.
On May 9, 2012, Johnson filed a second motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b),
Fed. R. Civ. P. In this motion, Johnson argues that he has “newly discovered evidence” which was
concealed from him through fraud. Specifically, he complains that the Court determined that his
transfer away from the Eastham Unit was based, in large part, on a report from Sgt. Haynes which
determined that Johnson had been the subject of threats emanating from the Muslim community.
1
Johnson asserted that Haynes’ report was false and was nothing more than a “pretext” to get him
transferred.
In his motion, Johnson states that he has now obtained copies of Haynes’ report and the four
anonymous letters which served as the basis for this report. He complains that these letters were
never disclosed to him, and asserts that the four letters were all written by the same person, whom
he identifies as an inmate named Johnny Jones. He states that Jones has no connection with the
Muslim community, but wrote the letters, falsely claiming that he was connected with the Muslim
community, out of “spite and personal animosity” towards Johnson. As a result, he says that Haynes’
investigative report “contains distortions and untruths.” He states that the Texas prison officials
have a long history of engaging in fraudulent conduct and asks that copies of the letters be produced
and that the final judgment be vacated. Johnson also argues in his motion that he has “federal
constitutional amendment rights” to maintain, sustain, and further his legitimate family interests,
even in a prison setting.
After review of the pleadings, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the
second motion to vacate be denied. The Magistrate Judge determined that Haynes’ report indicated
that she learned from various sources, including Johnson himself, that Johnson faced potential
danger, and Haynes recommended a transfer based on “possible future assaults.” The State
Classification Committee accepted this recommendation and ordered that Johnson be transferred.
Johnson failed to show that this transfer was retaliatory rather than being based upon the information
which was received regarding potential threats. This claim is without merit.
The Magistrate Judge also concluded that while Johnson had an undisputed right
to establish a familial relationship with his adoptive father, he has no constitutional right to be
housed at the same prison unit as his adoptive father. The Magistrate Judge therefore recommended
that Johnson’s second motion for relief from judgment be denied.
In his objections, Johnson argues that the failure to disclose documents to him constituted
fraud, the Magistrate Judge suppressed evidence, he wants a different Magistrate Judge and District
2
Judge to rule on his second motion to vacate, and “judicial bias” exists against him based upon
“personal animosity against prisoners who attempt to litigate their claims in the Eastern District of
Texas and Lufkin Division,” He complains that only one of his four theories for relief under Rule
60(b) - newly discovered evidence, surprise, fraud, and “interest of justice” with regard to
suppression of evidence by the court - were addressed, he raised other issues beyond the retaliatory
transfer in his first amended complaint, the crediting of Haynes’ report shows bias, he did not argue
that he has a “protected liberty interest” in being housed at a particular institution although he
complains of being at a different unit than his adoptive father, and it is “frightening” to contemplate
the “enormity of the false, misleading, and concocted information that surely must be contained in
files of TDCJ inmates.”
The Magistrate Judge did not “suppress” evidence and no discovery was effected because no
answer was filed. Johnson does not have the right to select the judicial officers assigned to his case
and he has failed to show any valid basis for recusal. Johnson’s assertion that Haynes’ report was
pretextual is a legal conclusion, not a factual pleading. Although Johnson challenged the accuracy
of Haynes’ report, the decision to transfer him was made by the State Classification Committee, not
by Haynes. The evidence before the State Classification Committee indicated that Johnson could
be in danger, a conclusion highlighted by the fact that Johnson had actually been assaulted by an
inmate named Clarence Moore. While Johnson challenges the veracity of Haynes’ report by saying
that “it is now clear” that the letters were written by Johnny Jones, he offers only the opinion of
Daniel Johnson that this was in fact the case. Moreover, Johnson has failed to show that Haynes
could have known of this alleged source for the letters at the time that she completed her report. The
Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that Johnson has no constitutional right to be housed at the
same prison unit as his adoptive father. Johnson has shown no basis for relief under any of the
subsections of Rule 60(b). His objections are without merit.
The Court has conducted a careful de novo review of the pleadings in this cause, including
the Plaintiff’s second motion for relief from judgment, the Report of the Magistrate Judge, and the
3
Plaintiff’s objections thereto. Upon such de novo review, the Court has concluded that the Report
of the Magistrate Judge is correct and that the Plaintiff’s objections are without merit. It is
accordingly
ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s objections are overruled and the Report of the Magistrate
Judge (docket no. 64) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further
ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s second motion for relief from judgment (docket no. 63) be
and hereby is DENIED.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 9 day of July, 2012.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 9 day of July, 2012.
___________________________________
Ron Clark, United States District Judge
___________________________________
Ron Clark, United States District Judge
4
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
