Jones v. NYC-STATE and DOC

Background

Tarnell Leon Jones, who was incarcerated at the San Carlos Correctional Facility in Pueblo, Colorado, filed this case without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against certain state actors for violating constitutional rights. He was permitted to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. Jones sought money damages and named “NYC - State & DOC,” “LA – State & DOC,” “Colorado - State & DOC,” and “All Staff & Mental Health & Dr. Nurse Atthen” as defendants.

Jones brought the action under his own name and also appeared to identify himself as the deceased rapper Tupac Amaru Shakur. He additionally used the names Lesan Parish Crooks, identified in the opinion as Shakur’s birth name, and “2 Pac Makaveli.” He alleged that events occurred in New York City, Los Angeles, and Colorado between 1996 and 2022. His allegations referred to a shooting, death and return to life, medical testing, ownership of recordings and vehicles, and an alleged effort to obtain medical and legal records.

Screening standard

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires courts to screen complaints filed by incarcerated people seeking relief from governmental entities or their officers or employees. Under the screening statutes, the court must dismiss a complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, seeks money from an immune defendant, or otherwise falls outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court must read a self-represented litigant’s allegations liberally, but the complaint still must contain enough factual detail to make a claim plausible rather than merely possible.

Court’s analysis

Judge Swain concluded that the complaint presented no arguable basis in law or fact. The court found that Jones’s assertions suggested that he believed he was Tupac Shakur and that he was seeking relief for events connected to Shakur’s reported death, but Jones provided no plausible factual support for his claims. The court characterized the allegations as irrational and found that Jones had pleaded no factual basis showing that the defendants violated his rights.

The opinion also addressed Jones’s request to have his Colorado conviction expunged. It explained that a person cannot use a § 1983 action to challenge the validity of a conviction or obtain release from custody; those forms of relief must be sought through a federal petition challenging the custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court further stated that, if Jones intended to bring claims on behalf of Shakur, a person representing himself without a lawyer could not bring another person’s claims.

Disposition

The court dismissed Jones’s complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Judge Swain declined to grant leave to amend because the court determined that the irrational allegations could not be cured by amendment. The court terminated all other pending matters, directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment, and certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith; it therefore denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.