Curry v. Officer Clark

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 4:26-cv-02820 Document3_ Filed 04/14/26in TXSD Pagelof4

United States District Court
Southem District of Texas

ENTERED
April 15, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

HOUSTON DIVISION
TONY CANANDUS CURRY, §
TDCJ—CID #01248123, §
Plaintiff,
Vv. Civil Action No. H-26-2820
OFFICER CLARK,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against Texas Department of Criminal Justice employee Officer Clark. Plaintiff did not pay
the filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Because plaintiff submitted
a copy of a commissary purchase receipt reflecting an account balance of $0.00, the Court
presumes he intends to seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Having screened the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A, the
Court DISMISSES this lawsuit for the reasons shown below.
I. BACKGROUND AND CLAIMS
Plaintiff claims that Officer Clark violated his constitutional rights by “try[ing] to
make me beg for things such as rec [sic] and my PM snacks.” (Docket Entry No. 1, p. 4.)
Plaintiff does not state that he was denied these amenities, but only that Officer Clark made

him “beg” for them. He seeks monetary compensation.

Case 4:26-cv-02820 Document3_ Filed 04/14/26 in TXSD Page 2of4

Il. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff complains that Officer Clark required him to “beg” for certain amenities such
as recreation and evening snacks. Plaintiff does not allege that he was denied the amenities;
his complaint arises from the manner in which Officer Clark provided the amenities.

Assuming plaintiff's allegations are true, Officer Clark’s actions are reprehensible,
cannot be condoned by this Court, and should not be condoned by prison officials.
Nevertheless, Officer Clark’s conduct did not violate plaintiff's constitutional rights, as
plaintiffs complaint does not show that he was denied any constitutionally-protected amenity
or right.

Plaintiff's claims against Officer Clark fail to raise a viable claim for relief under §
1983, and are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. '

Il. SANCTIONS WARNING

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), a civil lawsuit may brought in a judicial district in which
the defendant resides, or in a judicial district in which the claim arose. Plaintiff states in his
complaint that the claims involving Officer Clark occurred at the Montford Unit, which is
located within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Texas, Lubbock Division. None of the acts or omissions giving rise to the alleged

constitutional violations occurred within the United States District Court for the Southern

'The Court notes that plaintiff states he did not exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing
this lawsuit. (Docket Entry No. 1, p. 2.) His failure to exhaust subjects his lawsuit to dismissal
without prejudice. However, the Court will pretermit the exhaustion issue and dismiss this lawsuit
with prejudice for failure to raise a viable claim for relief.

2

Case 4:26-cv-02820 Document3_ Filed 04/14/26in TXSD Page 3of4

District of Texas, nor does plaintiff allege that Officer Clark resides within this District. As
a result, plaintiff's complaint was not properly filed with this Court. See Mayfield v.
Klevenhagen, 941 F.2d 346, 348 (Sth Cir. 1991).

The Court has advised plaintiff on multiple occasions that his lawsuits for claims
arising at the Montford Unit cannot be filed in the Southern District of Texas and must be
filed in the Lubbock Division of the Northern District of Texas. See Curry v. Bible Life
Study, C.A. No. 4:25-cv-1811 (S.D. Tex. April 21, 2025); Curry v. Roberson Unit Director,
C.A. No. 4:25-cv-1812 (S.D. Tex. April 21, 2025); Curry v. Montford Unit, C.A. No.
4:25-cv-5155 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 24, 2025). Most recently, on March 26, 2026, the Court
declined to transfer plaintiff’s lawsuit against the Montford Unit and the Allred Unit and
dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice based on improper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
Curry v. Montford Unit, C.A. No. H-26-2308 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 26, 2026). The Court again
advised plaintiff that his claims arising at the Montford Unit must be filed in the Lubbock
Division of the Northern District of Texas. The Court further advised plaintiffthat his claims
arising at the Allred Unit must be filed in the Wichita Falls Division of the Northern District
of Texas. The Court also assessed a strike against plaintiff for purposes of § 1915(g), finding
that plaintiff “ha[d] deliberately filed a fourth action in this Court after notice that this Court
has no jurisdiction.”

The instant lawsuit is plaintiff's fifth lawsuit filed in the Houston Division seeking

recourse for claims arising at the Montford Unit. The Court declines to transfer the lawsuit

Case 4:26-cv-02820 Document3_ Filed 04/14/26in TXSD Page4of4

to the Northern District of Texas and dismisses the lawsuit for failure to raise a viable claim

for relief.

Plaintiff is WARNED that his filing of further lawsuits in this Court that seek

recourse for claims that arose at the Montford Unit or the Allred Unit will subject him to the
imposition of sanctions against him by this Court, including monetary sanctions and/or orders

precluding his filing of new lawsuits without prior authorization of the Court.

IV. CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, this lawsuit is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure
to state a viable claim for relief under § 1983. This dismissal constitutes a strike and stands
as plaintiff's second strike. See Curry v. Montford Unit, C.A. No. H-26-2308 (S.D. Tex.
Mar. 26, 2026).

y-
Signed at Houston, Texas, on this the 4 day of April, 2026.

Mew PAu

KEITH P. ELLISON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE