1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

JAMES HULSEY,

Plaintiff,

v. 

STATE OF TEXAS, GOVERNOR OF 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, IN HIS 

OFFICIAL CAPACITY,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:23-CV-00210-JDK

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff James Hulsey is an inmate currently incarcerated in the Texas Department of 

Criminal Justice (“TDCJ”) Skyview Unit. On May 1, 2023, proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis (“IFP”), he filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the State of Texas and 

the Governor of the State of Texas. (Doc. No. 1.) On May 3, 2023, the court ordered Plaintiff to 

file an amended complaint, to be submitted on the court’s standard § 1983 form, which was mailed 

to Plaintiff. (Doc. No. 5.) On June 29, 2023, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in this matter. 

(Doc. No. 16.) 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, a court shall review, before docketing if feasible or in any event 

as soon as practicable after docketing, any complaint in a civil action wherein a prisoner seeks 

redress from a governmental entity or officer, or employee of a governmental entity. During its 

review, the court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint or any portion thereof 

if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). Section 1915A applies regardless of whether the plaintiff has paid a 

Case 6:23-cv-00210-JDK-JDL Document 19 Filed 07/07/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:

90
2

filing fee or is proceeding IFP. See Martin v. Scott, 156 F.3d 578, 579 (5th Cir. 1998) (“The plain 

language of [§ 1915A] . . . indicates that it applies to any suit by a prisoner regardless of whether 

that prisoner is or is not proceeding IFP.”).

A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted where it does not allege 

sufficient facts which, taken as true, state a claim which is plausible on its face and thus does not 

raise a right to relief above the speculative level. See Montoya v. FedEx Ground Packaging Sys. 

Inc., 614 F.3d 145, 149 (5th Cir. 2010) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 

(2007)). A claim has factual plausibility when the pleaded factual content allows the court to draw 

reasonable inferences that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. See Hershey v. Energy 

Transfer Partners, L.P., 610 F.3d 239, 245 (5th Cir. 2010); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 

(2009). This plausibility standard is not akin to a probability standard; rather, the plausibility 

standard requires more than the mere possibility that the defendant has acted unlawfully. Twombly, 

550 U.S. at 556 (emphasis supplied). All well-pleaded facts are taken as true, but the district court 

need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unwarranted factual inferences, or legal 

conclusions. See Whatley v. Coffin, 496 F. App’x 414 (5th Cir. 2012) (unpublished) (citing Plotkin 

v. IP Axess Inc., 407 F.3d 690, 696 (5th Cir. 2005)). Crucially, while the federal pleading rules do 

not require “detailed factual allegations,” the rule does “demand more than an unadorned, thedefendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A pleading offering “labels 

and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action” will not suffice, 

nor does a complaint which provides only naked assertions that are devoid of further factual 

enhancement. Id. 

Here, while Plaintiff has filed his amended complaint on the court’s standard form, as 

ordered, his amended complaint fails to state a claim. In order to state a plausible claim for relief, 

Case 6:23-cv-00210-JDK-JDL Document 19 Filed 07/07/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:

91
3

a pleading must contain (1) “a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction,” 

(2) “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” and (3) 

“a demand for the relief sought.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8. Plaintiff has not pleaded a single fact in his 

complaints, let alone one that would entitle him to relief, as required under the second prong of 

Rule 8. Plaintiff’s allegations consist of: (1) a list of articles of the Texas Criminal Code and 

Constitution of the United States; (2) a series of legal questions; and (3) a twenty-one-page 

memorandum citing all of the prior mentioned authorities, in addition to the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure and various caselaw. (Doc. Nos. 16, 16-1.) 

Setting forth a laundry list of “acts” and other extraneous sources, without any information 

to explain how Plaintiff was injured as a result of an alleged violation of those “acts,” is insufficient 

to set forth a claim for relief. Plaintiff must meet the Rule 8 requirements, and he must do so with 

particularity, providing sufficient facts supporting his allegations. See Twombly, 550 U.S at 545 

(interpreting Rule 8); see also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 684–85 (applying Twombly generally to civil 

actions pleaded under Rule 8). Allegations that are implausible and unsupported by facts or 

evidence are insufficient to state a claim. Id. Plaintiff must include enough information to support 

each request for relief so that the named Defendants can understand the claims that are being 

brought against them and how they allegedly caused Plaintiff’s harm. Plaintiff has failed to do so 

here as he has failed to allege a factual basis for which the named defendants could be sued 

pursuant to § 1983. See Douthit v. Jones, 619 F.2d 527, 532 (5th Cir. 1980) (“[t]o establish a cause 

of action under § 1983, [] a party must [] show that the defendant, while acting under color of law, 

deprived him of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States”) (internal 

quotations omitted). 

Case 6:23-cv-00210-JDK-JDL Document 19 Filed 07/07/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:

92
4

Having conducted screening pursuant to § 1915A, the court finds that this action should be 

dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). As Plaintiff has already been given an opportunity 

to amend and has pleaded his “best case,” any further amendment would be futile. See Norman v. 

Tex. Court of Criminal Appeals, 582 F. App’x 430, 431 (Mem) (5th Cir. 2014) (unpublished); 

Brewster v. Dretke, 587 F.3d 764, 767–68 (5th Cir. 2009). The dismissal of this action counts as a 

qualifying dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 

1996) abrogated in part on other grounds by Coleman v. Tollefson, 575 U.S. 532, 534–41 (2015).

CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed herein, the court RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed 

with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) as set forth herein. 

Within fourteen (14) days after receipt of the Magistrate Judge’s Report, any party may 

serve and file written objections to the findings and recommendations contained in the Report. A 

party’s failure to file written objections to the findings, conclusions and recommendations 

contained in this Report within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy shall bar that 

party from de novo review by the district judge of those findings, conclusions and 

recommendations and, except on grounds of plain error, from appellate review of unobjected-to 

factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the district court. Douglass v. 

United States Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996).

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 7th day of July, 2023.

Case 6:23-cv-00210-JDK-JDL Document 19 Filed 07/07/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:

93