Burks v. Scott et al

LAMAR BURKS,
TDCJ #01011723 ,
Plaintiff,
VS.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
§
§
§
§
§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-01605
§
CHAD ALLEN SCOTT, et al. , 	§
§
Defendants. 	§
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiff Lamar Burks (TDCJ # 01011723) is a state inmate in custody of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice at the Ramsey 1 Unit in Rosharon, Texas. Burks filed this
civil rights action against several defendants who were instrumental in his conviction for
murder, alleging that they maliciously prosecuted him and conspired together to obtain a
false conviction. 	Doc. No. 1. 	After reviewing the pleadings as required by 28 U.S .C.
§ 191 SA, the Court concludes that this case must be DISMISSED without prejudice.
I. 	DISCUSSION
Burks's complaint is subject to screening under the Prison Litigation Reform Act
(PLRA), which requires a district court to scrutinize claims in a civil action brought by a
prisoner and dismiss the complaint, in whole or in part, if it "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).
1/ 4
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 11, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-01605 Document 15 Filed 06/11/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

Pleadings filed by pro se litigants must be construed under a less stringent standard
of review. 	See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). 	Under this standard, a court
liberally construes a document filed prose. 	Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 , 94 (2007)
(citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 , 106 (1976)). However, "[t]hreadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice."
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). 	A complaint "must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face."' Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). 	"A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads
factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. at 678.
Public records reflect that Burks was convicted of murder in Harris County cause
number 843968. 	See State v. Burks, Crim. No. 843968 (208th Dist. Ct., Harris County,
Tex. Oct. 27, 2000). 	The Court observes that this is not the first time that Burks has sued
the individuals and officials who were instrumental in securing his murder conviction, and
those other lawsuits were dismissed as barred by Heck or for being malicious as a
duplicative case seeking relief that was previously denied. See, e.g., Burks v. Collins, Civ.
A. No. 4:12-cv-2152 (S.D. Tex. July 30, 2012) (dismissing case as frivolous as barred by
Heck); Burks v. Collins, Civ. A. No. 4:12-cv-2387 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 20, 2012). 	Because
Burks 's murder conviction has not been overturned, his renewed civil rights claims for
2 / 4
Case 4:26-cv-01605 Document 15 Filed 06/11/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

relief in connection with that conviction are barred under the Supreme Court' s holding in
Heck v. Humphr ey, 512 U.S . 477, 486- 87 (1994).
Heck bars a civil rights action, regardless of the type of relief sought, that would
necessarily 	imply 	the invalidity of the plaintiffs conviction or sentence, unless the
conviction has previously been invalidated through proper channels. Id. ; Kutzner v.
Montgomery County, 303 F.3d 339, 340 (5th Cir. 2002). Thus, before a plaintiff can pursue
a claim for damages or injunctive relief arising from allegedly unlawful actions which, if
proven, would also show the plaintiffs conviction or sentence to be invalid, the plaintiff
must first show that his conviction or sentence has been reversed on appeal, expunged by
executive order, or called into question by a federal court 's issuance of a writ of habeas
corpus. Id.
Burks 's claims are inextricably linked to the legality of his murder conviction. 	He
alleges that the defendants conspired to obtain his murder conviction, engaged in love
affairs and/or conflicts of interest, and set him up. 	His claims directly challenge his
conviction because a judgment favorable to him on his present civil rights claims would
necessarily 	imply the invalidity of his conviction and sentence as 	being wrongfully
obtained. 	Because Burks does not show that his conviction has been overturned or
invalidated through proper channels, his current civil rights claims are barred by Heck and
must be dismissed.
3 / 4
Case 4:26-cv-01605 Document 15 Filed 06/11/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

II. 	CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS that:
1. 	Plaintiffs Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b)(l), for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted based on Heck
v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).
2. 	All pending motions are DENIED as MOOT.
3. 	This dismiss al constitutes a "strike" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
The Clerk of Court shall send a copy of this dismissal to the parties and to the Clerk
of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division,
515 Rusk Street, Houston, Texas, 77002, Attention: 	Three-Strikes List Manager, at:
Three_Strikes@txs.uscourts.gov.
~
SIGNED on this 	t ( 	day of June 2026.
ANDREW S. HANEN l
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4 / 4
Case 4:26-cv-01605 Document 15 Filed 06/11/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4