IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO DIVISION

EMANUEL JARREL, §

 §

PLAINTIFF, §

§

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NUMBER 1:05-CV-234-C

§

TAYLOR COUNTY COURT, et al, §

§

DEFENDANTS. §

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, which

was filed on December 20, 2005, and the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, which was filed on

March 30, 2006.

Analysis

When a party seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court shall dismiss the complaint

at any time if the Court determines that the complaint is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a

claim on which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune

from such claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Although pro se complaints are to be construed

liberally, this Court is still bound by the allegations in the complaint, and is not free to speculate

that the plaintiff “might” be able to state a claim if given another opportunity. Macias v. Raul A.

(Unknown), Badge No. 153, 23 F.3d 94, 97 (5th. Cir. 1994).

 

 Case 1:05-cv-00234-J Document 27 Filed 07/28/06 Page 1 of 5 PageID 115
Plaintiff’s Claims

In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that “this action is brought under sections 202 and 203

of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12132 and 12133–incorporating by reference the remedies, procedures,

and rights under the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 794 and 794a, and under Section 505 of the

Rehabilitation act, which enforces Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 42 U.S.C. 794 and

794a–incorporating the remedies, rights, and procedures set forth in Section 717 of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964, including the application of Sections 706(f) through 706(k), 42 U.S.C.

2005e-5(f)-(k).”(Compl. At ¶ 1.) Plaintiff further alleges that “[t]his action is also brought under

the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 as addition jurisdiction over the federal defendant; more

specifically, communications barriers.”(Compl. At ¶ 2.) The disability plaintiff is alleging is his

own insanity. Plaintiff was ordered to clarify his claim through a questionnaire. In his

questionnaire, Plaintiff stated that there was no public procedure for accommodation of his

disability, to the best of his knowledge, despite a request made to the “Clerk of the Court, State

Judge’s Secretary, Courts, both federal and state, respectively”. (Questionnaire At ¶ 3-4.) 

Immunity of the Federal Courts

The Courts of the Northern District of Texas are federal courts and enjoy general

sovereign immunity from suit as part of the federal government. Veldhoen v. U.S. Coast Guard,

35 F.3d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1994).

Both the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act Provision under which the plaintiff pleads his

allegations are directed toward state and local government agencies or instrumentalities. 42

U.S.C. § 12131 (a “public entity” includes only a State or local government or any department,

agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentalities of a State or local government); 29

U.S.C. § 794 (defining a “program or activity” to mean all of the operations of a department,

 

 Case 1:05-cv-00234-J Document 27 Filed 07/28/06 Page 2 of 5 PageID 116
agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or local government).

Plaintiff has also plead allegations against the Northern District by the way of the

Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. §4151. (Compl. At ¶ 2.) However, the

Architectural Barriers Act applies specifically to barriers that prevent “physically handicapped

persons” from having “ready access to, and use of” federal buildings. 42 U.S.C. §4151-52. 

Plaintiff’s claims against the Northern District based upon the Architectural Barriers Act are

unsuccessful because Plaintiff has alleged “communications barriers” as the basis for such a

claim rather than any physical handicap or barrier. 

In his questionnaire, Plaintiff alleges that the particular communication barrier is the poor

marking of the Courthouse’s location. (Questionnaire at ¶ 9.) There is no basis in case law to

support the notion that requires buildings under the Architectural Barriers Act to be identified to

the satisfaction of a person who, in his own pleading, claims he cannot understand and

comprehend fact or reality. (Compl. At ¶ 4.) Plaintiff does not qualify under the Act because he

has not alleged any sort of physical handicap, rather, he claims to suffer from a mental

impairment.

Plaintiff has also based his claims against the Northern District on provisions he found in

Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5 (f)-(k). However, these provisions apply to “unlawful

employment practices.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(a)(enforcement provisions found in § 2000e-5 are

provided to prevent unlawful employment practices). The Plaintiff has not alleged any sort of

employment relationship with the Northern District of Texas courts.

Plaintiff’s allegations, even when construed liberally, cannot state a claim upon which

relief can be granted against the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas,

Abilene Division. All of Plaintiff’s claims are meritless and are dismissed.

 

 Case 1:05-cv-00234-J Document 27 Filed 07/28/06 Page 3 of 5 PageID 117
Insufficiency of Claims against the State Courts

Plaintiff alleges that “Taylor County Court and Taylor County 104th District Court denied

Plaintiff access to defendant’s programs, activities or services” on multiple occasions. (Compl.

At ¶ 5.) It is unclear in what was or how the denial occurred on any of the dates mentioned. 

Plaintiff was also unwilling to elaborate as to what programs and services he was denied. He

alleges he was denied “all programs/services” but declines to go into more detail (Questionaire at

¶ 2-4). 

Plaintiff alleges that he “is an otherwise qualified individual with a physical or mental

impairment of schizophrenia, dementia, and other mental illness that substantially limits the

major life activities of [Plaintiff’s] social interactions or communications (including

understanding and comprehension of fact or reality as agreed upon by the general milieu from

imagination or misinterpretation), hereafter disability.” (Compl. At ¶ 4.) Thus, it appears that the

Plaintiff is alleging that the state court denied him access to some program or service to which he

believes he was entitled but has failed to articulate. 

Plaintiff denies that this case was brought in conjunction with an unfavorable ruling in

another case. (Questionnaire At ¶ 5.) Plaintiff alleges that the reason for the denial of his

requested “reasonable accommodation” was not stated by the court. (Compl. At ¶ 4.) It is

unclear exactly what program or service was denied to the Plaintiff on the dates given, and

Plaintiff refused to clarify with any specificity what programs were denied in the questionnaire. 

(Compl. At ¶ 6), (Questionnaire. At ¶ 2-4.) 

Plaintiff repeatedly states that the courthouses have “denied all [his] requests for

accomodations [sic],” however, at no point in his questionnaire or complaint does he state what

accommodations he was seeking, why they were denied, and why he is entitled to these

 

 Case 1:05-cv-00234-J Document 27 Filed 07/28/06 Page 4 of 5 PageID 118
accommodations.(Questionnaire. At ¶ 8.) Plaintiffs complaint does not meet the basic notice

pleading requirements set out in Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Fed. R. Civ. P.

8(e) (“each averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise, and direct”). 

Conclusions

Because it appears on the face of the complaint that relief cannot be granted, the claims

against Taylor County 104th District court are dismissed. The claims against the United States

District Court in the Northern District of Texas are dismissed because all federal courts are

privileged with sovereign immunity, making them immune from suit.

SO ORDERED.

Dated this 28th day of July, 2006

/s/ MARY LOU ROBINSON 

MARY LOU ROBINSON

United States District Judge

 

 Case 1:05-cv-00234-J Document 27 Filed 07/28/06 Page 5 of 5 PageID 119