Vassar El v. Plumer et al
Filing
18
ORDER AND REASONS - For the reasons herein, the Court APPROVES the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations and ADOPTS it as its opinion in this matter. IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner Dexter Lewis Vassar El's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 com plaint against Benedict J. Willard, Commissioner Albert A. Thibodeaux, Assistant District Attorney Darrius Greene, and Public Defender Tina Peng is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 c laims against Agent Adam Plumer, Commander Doug Elliot, Deputy Rice, Deputy Marcia Wills Watson, and Deputy Lawrence Jones be and hereby are STAYED pending the outcome of Plaintiff's criminal proceedings in state court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED tha t the Court retain jurisdiction over the stayed claims and that the case be restored to the trial docket upon Plaintiff's motion once his criminal proceedings are concluded, so that the claims may proceed to final disposition. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
DEXTER LEWIS VASSAR EL,
Plaintiff
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 18-946
ADAM PLUMER, ET AL.,
Defendants
SECTION: “E”(3)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge
Daniel E. Knowles III recommending that Dexter Vassar El’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint
against Benedict J. Willard, Commissioner Albert A. Thibodeaux, Assistant District
Attorney Darrius Greene, and Public Defender Tina Peng be dismissed with prejudice.1
Judge Knowles further recommended that Plaintiff’s claims against Agent Adam Plumer,
Commander Doug Elliot, Deputy Rice, Deputy Marcia Wills Watson, and Deputy Lawrence
Jones be stayed pending the outcome of Plaintiff’s state court proceedings. 2 Plaintiff timely
objected to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. 3 For the reasons that
follow, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation as its own, and hereby
DISMISSES Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Willard, Thibodeaux, Greene, and Peng
and STAYS Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Plumer, Elliot, Rice, Watson, and Jones.
BACKGROUND
On March 26, 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against
Defendants challenging the constitutionality of his arrest and related criminal
R. Doc. 8.
Id.
3 R. Docs. 9–17.
1
2
1
proceedings. 4 As relief, he requests $100,000,000. 5 On May 10, 2018, Magistrate Judge
Knowles issued his Report and Recommendation. 6 On May 21, 2018, Plaintiff timely filed
his objections. 7
ANALYSIS
In reviewing the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, the Court must
conduct a de novo review of any of the magistrate judge’s conclusions to which a party
has specifically objected. 8 As to the portions of the report that are not objected to, the
Court needs only to review those portions to determine whether they are clearly erroneous
or contrary to law. 9
In his objections to Magistrate Judge Knowles’ Report and Recommendation,
Plaintiff asserts that the inadequacy of his claim is the result of his inability to access legal
resources, namely Black’s Law Dictionary, “due to duress of imprisonment.” 10 However,
a prisoner’s constitutional right to counsel does not guarantee him access to a law
library. 11 In this case, Plaintiff was appointed counsel, whom he later dismissed. 12 This
appointment satisfied Plaintiff’s constitutional right, and officials are not further
obligated to provide Plaintiff with legal research materials. 13
Plaintiff also objects to the magistrate judge’s finding that Defendants Willard,
Thibodeaux, Greene, and Peng are immune from suit, claiming that he is “a Free and
R. Doc. 5.
Id.
6 R. Doc. 8.
7 R. Doc. 9.
8 See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“[A] judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of
the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which an objection is made.”).
9 Id.
10 R. Doc. 9 at 1.
11 Degrate v. Godwin, 84 F.3d 768 (5th Cir. 1996).
12 R. Doc. 8 at 12.
13 Degrate, 84 F.3d at 768.
4
5
2
Sovereign Moorish American National” and, therefore, these Defendants are not
protected from his suit. 14 Such a claim has no legal validity and must be dismissed under
28 U.S.C. § 1915. 15 As a result, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants
Willard, Thibodeaux, Greene, and Peng.
With respect to the remaining Defendants—Plumer, Elliot, Deputy Rice, Watson,
and Jones—Plaintiff, who is a pre-trial detainee, 16 challenges the legality of his arrest.
Although a plaintiff is not barred from bringing a federal civil rights claim while awaiting
trial on a criminal charge, 17 if a plaintiff files a claim related to any rulings that will likely
be made in a pending criminal trial, then it is within the power of the district court and in
accordance with common practice to stay the civil action until the criminal case is
resolved. 18 In this case, because plaintiff’s civil rights claims concern his pending criminal
trial and the constitutionality of his arrest will likely be addressed by the state court, this
Court will stay Plaintiff’s federal civil rights claims against Plumer, Elliot, Deputy Rice,
Watson, and Jones until Plaintiff’s state criminal proceedings conclude.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons above, the Court APPROVES the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendations and ADOPTS it as its opinion in this matter. 19
R. Doc. 9 at 1.
The court shall dismiss in forma pauperis proceedings where “(B) the action or appeal – (i) is frivolous.”
28 U.S.C. § 1915. See, e.g., United States v. Schneider, 910 F.2d 1569, 1570 (7th Cir. 1990) (holding the
sovereign citizen defense has no validity in American law); Mason v. Anderson, No. H-15-2952, 2016 WL
4398680, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 18, 2016) (“[T]here is no constitutional support for the sovereign citizen
claims”); Berman v. Stephens, No. 4:14-CV-860-A., 2015 WL 3622694, at *2 (N.D. Tex. June 10, 2015)
(holding that reliance on “sovereign citizen” theory is frivolous).
16 R. Doc. 8.
17 Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393 (2007).
18 Id. at 393-94. Kato, relying on another Supreme Court case, Heck v. Humphrey, further notes that if a
plaintiff is ultimately convicted and the stayed civil suit would impugn that conviction, then the civil suit
must be dismissed. Kato, 549 U.S. at 394 (citing Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994)).
19 R. Doc. 8.
14
15
3
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner Dexter Lewis Vassar El’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983
complaint against Benedict J. Willard, Commissioner Albert A. Thibodeaux, Assistant
District Attorney Darrius Greene, and Public Defender Tina Peng is hereby DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE. 20
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against
Agent Adam Plumer, Commander Doug Elliot, Deputy Rice, Deputy Marcia Wills Watson,
and Deputy Lawrence Jones be and hereby are STAYED pending the outcome of
Plaintiff’s criminal proceedings in state court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court retain jurisdiction over the stayed
claims and that the case be restored to the trial docket upon Plaintiff’s motion once his
criminal proceedings are concluded, so that the claims may proceed to final disposition.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 10th day of August, 2018.
_____________ ________ _________
SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
20
R. Doc. 5.
4
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?