□ Southern District of Texas ENTERED October 11, 2022 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Nathan Ochsner, Clerk FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION DAVID MAURICE JACKSON, a/k/a § DAVID JACKSON, SPN #02233617, § § Plaintiff, § § V. § Civil Action No. H-22-3316 § HARRIS COUNTY JAILER, § § Defendant. §

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, a Harris County pretrial detainee proceeding pro se and seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis, filed a lawsuit under

against a “Harris County Jailer” for the alleged violation of his and his family’s constitutional rights. Having screened plaintiff's complaint under 28 U.S.C.§§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A, the Court DISMISSES this lawsuit for the reasons shown below. I. BACKGROUND AND CLAIMS Plaintiff is in Harris County pretrial detention awaiting trial on two charges for assault of a family member. He complains that his family’s name is being verbally abused at the Harris County Jail, that the defendant is stealing his family’s income and trying to get his family members hurt by calling them snitches. Plaintiff seeks $10 million in monetary damages.

Il. ANALYSIS Plaintiffis an inmate seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis who requests redress from a governmental employee. The Court is required by federal law 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 relief.” 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b), 1915(e)(2)(B); see also 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c) (providing that the court “shall on its own motion or on the motion of a party dismiss an action” if it is satisfied that the complaint is “frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief”). Plaintiff's factual allegations raise no issue of a constitutional dimension, and no viable claim for relief is pleaded. Complaints of verbal abuse, threats, or insults do not constitute cognizable claims under section 1983. See Robertson v. Plano City,

(Sth Cir. 1995) (collecting cases). To the extent plaintiff claims that his family’s income is being stolen, plaintiff is not a licensed attorney and cannot prosecute claims on behalf of another person. See, e.g., Gonzales v. Wyatt,

(5th Cir. 1998) a federal court a party can represent himself or be represented by an attorney, but cannot be represented by a non-lawyer”). Because plaintiff's allegations as to loss of another person’s property raise no constitutional issue as to the violation of his own constitutional rights, no viable claim is presented under section 1983.

Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as frivolous and for failure to state a viable claim for relief under section 1983. Il. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as frivolous and for failure to state a viable claim pursuant to

(e)(2)(B). Any and all pending motions are DISMISSED AS MOOT. This dismissal constitutes a strike for purposes of

(g), and stands as plaintiff's third strike. See Jackson v. Harris County Jailers, C.A. No. H-3100 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 22, 2022) (dismissing as frivolous and for failure to state a claim plaintiff's complaints of verbal abuse); Jackson v. Ellis Unit, C.A. No. H-22-0200 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 2, 2022) (dismissing as a strike plaintiff s complaints of being harassed and called a snitch at the Ellis Unit). Plaintiffis barred from proceeding in forma pauperis in federal district or appellate court unless he demonstrates he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time of filing.

(g). Signed at Houston, Texas, on OCT I . ally — UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE