IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

WAYNE JONES §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23cv459

TDCJ-PARDONS AND PAROLES DIV. § 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Wayne Jones, an inmate confined at the Jefferson County Correctional Facility, proceeding

pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Pardons and Paroles

Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and Shedrick Lewis, a parole officer. This

matter was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 for findings of

fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case.

Factual Allegations

Plaintiff alleges that on August 2, 2023, he was arrested for violating the terms of his release

on parole. He states that pursuant to Section 508.282 of the Texas Government Code, officials were

required to dispose of the charges which resulted in his arrest within a specified time period. 

Plaintiff asserts that even though the applicable time period expired on November 2, 2023, the parole

revocation warrant has not been withdrawn and he has not been released. Plaintiff seeks

compensation for being improperly confined.

Standard of Review

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, a district court shall dismiss a complaint filed by a prisoner

seeking redress from a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity, if

the complaint “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.” A complaint may be

dismissed for failure to state a claim if the plaintiff fails to plead “enough facts to state a claim to

relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). While

Case 1:23-cv-00459-MJT-ZJH Document 3 Filed 04/26/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 14
a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, the plaintiff must allege sufficient facts

to show more than a speculative right to relief. Id. at 555.

Analysis

Plaintiff complains that he has not been released as required by statute. For the reasons set

forth below, his request for money damages based on his allegations is barred by the Supreme

Court’s decision in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).

Heck provides that in order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional convictions

or imprisonment, or for other harms caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a

conviction or incarceration invalid, a plaintiff must prove that the imprisonment has been reversed

on appeal, expunged by executive order or called into question by the issuance of a writ of habeas

corpus. Id. at 486-87. 

As a result, when a court considers a claim that a plaintiff has been improperly incarcerated,

the court must consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the

invalidity of the plaintiff’s confinement. If it would, the complaint must be dismissed unless the

plaintiff can demonstrate that the confinement challenged has already been invalidated. Heck, 512

U.S. at 487. If, however, the court determines that the plaintiff’s action, even if successful, would

not demonstrate the invalidity of the plaintiff’s confinement, the action should be allowed to

proceed. Id.

Plaintiff contends that if officials have acted in accordance with a state statute, he would 

no longer be confined. As a result, if plaintiff were to receive a judgment in his favor in this 

lawsuit, the judgment would necessarily imply that he is wrongfully imprisoned. As plaintiff does 

not state that his imprisonment has been invalidated, he may not proceed with a claim for money 

damages. This lawsuit should therefore be dismissed.

Recommendation

This civil rights lawsuit should be dismissed.

2

Case 1:23-cv-00459-MJT-ZJH Document 3 Filed 04/26/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 15
Objections

Objections must be (1) specific, (2) in writing, and (3) served and filed within 14 days after

being served with a copy of this report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

A party’s failure to object bars that party from (1) entitlement to de novo review by a district

judge of proposed findings and recommendations, Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276-77 (5th

Cir. 1988), and (2) appellate review, except on grounds of plain error, of unobjected-to factual

findings and legal conclusions which are accepted by the district court, Douglass v. United Servs.

Auto. Ass’n., 79 F.3d 1415, 1429 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

3

_________________________

Zack Hawthorn

United States Magistrate Judge SIGNED this 26th day of April, 2024.

Case 1:23-cv-00459-MJT-ZJH Document 3 Filed 04/26/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 16