1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

JOHNATHAN ROY RIDGE,

Plaintiff,

v. 

GREGG COUNTY SHERIFF, TDC 

SUPERVISOR, GREGG COUNTY 

MAYOR,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:23-CV-00271-JDK

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Jonathan Roy Ridge is an inmate currently incarcerated in the Greg County Jail. 

On May 22, 2023, proceeding pro se, he filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against 

various Gregg County officials. (Doc. No. 1.) On May 25, 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. 4.) On June 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in this matter. (Doc. 

No. 7.) 

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 

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

Case 6:23-cv-00271-JDK-JDL Document 11 Filed 07/07/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:

40
2

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, 

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

Case 6:23-cv-00271-JDK-JDL Document 11 Filed 07/07/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:

41
3

(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 state that “it happened in Gregg County Jail” in 2022, that 

Defendants “failed to do [their] job,” that they have “failed to obey judges,” and failed to have 

Plaintiff released. (Doc. No. 7.) Plaintiff’s allegations fail to include any facts regarding what “it” 

was that occurred at the jail. Moreover, Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations that Defendants failed to 

do their jobs, failed to obey judges, and failed to have him released do not state a legal claim. None 

of these threadbare conclusions entitle Plaintiff to relief, as Plaintiff 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). 

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. 

Case 6:23-cv-00271-JDK-JDL Document 11 Filed 07/07/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:

42
4

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-00271-JDK-JDL Document 11 Filed 07/07/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:

43