US. DISTRICT COU IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT | ~!"" ADECCO □□□ FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AMARILLO DIVISION DRAIH JORESEN FINCH, oak U.S. DISTRICT COURT TDCJ-CID No. 01985702, § Plaintiff, : v. : 2:18-CV-220-Z-BR THE STATE OF TEXAS et al., : Defendants. : MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT Before the Court is Plaintiffs civil rights complaint brought pursuant to

against the above-referenced Defendants (ECF No. 3) (“Complaint”), filed November 20, 2018. Plaintiff filed suit pro se while a prisoner incarcerated in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (“TDCJ’), Correctional Institutions Division. Plaintiff was granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis. For the reasons discussed herein, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's Complaint WITH PREJUDICE. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff alleges Defendants gave false testimony during his 2014 trial for the criminal offense of first-degree assault, which resulted in his criminal conviction and subsequent incarceration in TDCJ. ECF No. 3 at 6. Plaintiff claims Defendants falsified evidence during and after the trial and unlawfully altered trial transcripts. Jd. at 6-8. Further, Plaintiff claims Defendants’ illegal acts — which led to his incarceration — also caused every injury he has suffered during incarceration. /d. at 8.

LEGAL STANDARD When a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility brings an action with respect to prison conditions under any federal law, the Court may evaluate the complaint and dismiss it without service of process, Ali v. Higgs,

(5th Cir. 1990), if it 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. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A, 1915(e)(2). The same standards will support dismissal of a suit brought under any federal law by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility, where such suit concerns prison conditions. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1). A Spears hearing need not be conducted for every pro se complaint. Wilson v. Barrientos,

, 483 n.4 (Sth Cir. 1991).? ANALYSIS The Supreme Court has held a § 1983 claim which attacks the constitutionality of a conviction (or imprisonment, as the case may be) does not accrue until that conviction (or sentence) has been “reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.” Heck v. Humphrey,

(1994); see also Wells v. Bonner,

(Sth Cir. 1995).

| A claim is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact. Booker v. Koonce,

(Sth Cir. 1993). 2 Green vs. McKaskle,

(Sth Cir. 1986) (“Of course, our discussion of Spears should not be interpreted to mean that all or even most prisoner claims require or deserve a Spears hearing. A district court should be able to dismiss as frivolous a significant number of prisoner suits on the complaint alone or the complaint together with the Watson questionnaire.”). Dismissals may also be based on adequately identified or authenticated records. Banuelos v. McFarland, 4\ F.3d 232, 234 (Sth Cir. 1995).

Here, all of Plaintiffs claims necessarily involve his underlying state court conviction for first-degree assault. Plaintiffs conviction has not been overturned through appeal or habeas relief. Additionally, the Defendants alleged by Plaintiff were mostly witnesses — not state actors subject to § 1983 liability. All of Plaintiff's claims are frivolous until the Heck conditions (reversal of his conviction) are met. . CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A, 1915(e)(2) and 42 § 1997e(a), the Court ORDERS the Complaint by Plaintiff filed pursuant to

be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous. □ SO ORDERED. February &. 2022

MA J. "er ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE