Mahogany v. Stalder et al
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Complaint filed by Richard Mahogany, Jr Objections to R&R due by 5/18/2006. Signed by Judge Alma L. Chasez.(ijg, )
Mahogany v. Stalder et al
Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA RICHARD MAHOGANY, JR. VERSUS RICHARD STALDER, ET AL. CIVIL ACTION NUMBER: 06-2293 SECTION: "I"(5)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This 42 U.S.C. §1983 proceeding was filed
in forma pauperis
by pro se plaintiff, Richard Mahogany, Jr., against defendants Richard Stalder, Secretary Warden of the Louisiana of Department the of
Correctional Institute ("WCI"), Angie, Louisiana, and Chairman Lynn McCloud. Plaintiff is an inmate alleges that prison disciplinary
proceedings which were brought against him and which resulted in the loss of ninety days of "good time" credits were flawed in that he was never provided with a written statement of the evidence relied upon or the reasons for the punishment that was imposed. In
his prayer for relief, Mahogany asks that the lost good time
Page 2 of 3
credits be restored to him, that the results of the disciplinary proceedings be expunged from his prison record, and that he be awarded monetary damages to remedy the alleged due process
violation. Unless and until Mahogany is able to have his disciplinary conviction reversed, expunged, or otherwise declared invalid by a tribunal authorized to make such a determination, he has no §1983 claim for damages and for reinstatement of his lost good time credits. Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750-51, 124 S.Ct. 1303,
1304 (2004)(citing Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 117 S.Ct. 1584 (1997)); Clarke v. Stalder, 154 F.3d 186, 189 (5th Cir. 1998)(en banc), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1151, 119 S.Ct. 1052 (1999).
Accordingly, it will be recommended that plaintiff's §1983 claim be dismissed with prejudice to it being asserted again when the Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364 (1994) conditions are met. Johnson v. McElveen, 101 F.3d 423, 424 (5th Cir. 1996). RECOMMENDATION For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that plaintiff's §1983 claim be dismissed with prejudice to it being asserted again when the Heck conditions are met. A party's failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation contained in a magistrate judge's report and recommendation within 10 days after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain
Page 3 of 3
error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court, provided that the party has been served with notice that such consequences will result from a failure to object. Douglass v.
United Services Auto. Assoc., 79 is a Test1415 (5th Cir. 1996)(en banc). Hello This F.3d
May New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ day of _________________, 5th
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?