Poydras v. City of Baton Rouge, Louisiana et al

Filing 17

RULING: Because it is clear that the plaintiff's claim has no arguable basis in fact or in law and the allegations fail to state a claim, the 1 complaint should be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Judgment shall be entered accordingly.. Signed by Chief Judge Ralph E. Tyson on 4/27/2011. (CMM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LONNIE POYDRAS (#42058)
VERSUS

CIVIL ACTION

CITY OF BATON ROUGE, ET AL

NUMBER 10-324-RET-DLD
RULING

Pro se plaintiff, an inmate at West Baton Rouge Detention
Center, Port Allen, Louisiana, filed this action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Baton Rouge, Baton Rouge
City Police officer Christopher Wheat, Baton Rouge City Police
officer Donald Johnson and Assistant United States Attorney
Michael

J.

Jefferson.1

Plaintiff

alleged

that

he

was

subjected to a false arrest and malicious prosecution in
violation of his constitutional rights.
Subsection

(c)(1)

of

42

U.S.C.

§

1997e

provides

as

follows:
(c) Dismissal.--(1) The court shall on its own
motion or on the motion of a party dismiss any
action
brought
with
respect
to
prison
conditions under section 1983 of this title, or
any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined
in any jail, prison, or other correctional
facility if the court is satisfied that the
action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state
1

Plaintiff’s claims against Assistant United States Attorney
Michael J. Jefferson were previously dismissed. Record document
number 8.

a claim upon which relief can be granted, or
seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief.
An

in

forma

pauperis

suit

is

properly

dismissed

as

frivolous if the claim lacks an arguable basis either in fact
or in law.

Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 112 S.Ct. 1728,

1733 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 109 S.Ct.
1827, 1831-32 (1989); Hicks v. Garner, 69 F.3d 22, 24 (5th
Cir.

1995).

A

court

may

dismiss

a

claim

as

factually

frivolous only if the facts are clearly baseless, a category
encompassing allegations that are fanciful, fantastic, and
delusional.

Denton, 504 U.S. at 33-34, 112 S.Ct. at 1733.

Pleaded facts which are merely improbable or strange, however,
are not frivolous for § 1915(d) purposes.
Plasma, Inc., 964

Id.; Ancar v. SARA

F.2d 465, 468 (5th Cir. 1992).

Dismissal

under § 1915(d) may be made at any time before or after
service of process and before or after an answer is filed.
Green v. McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1116, 1119 (5th Cir. 1986).
Plaintiff alleged that on May 18, 2009, he was subjected
to

a

traffic

Plaintiff

stop

alleged

by

Baton

Rouge

City

that

his

vehicle

was

Police

officers.

searched

without

probable cause and without his consent or a search warrant.
Plaintiff alleged that as a result of the traffic stop he was

2

arrested on charges of being a felon in possession of a
firearm.

Plaintiff alleged that he was subsequently indicted

by a federal grand jury in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana on charges of being a
felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
922(g)(1).
On October 14, 2010, the plaintiff was found guilty of
being a felon in possession of a firearm by a jury in the
United States District Court for the Middle of Louisiana.2
Petitioner was sentenced on April 14, 2011.
Plaintiff's claims must initially be pursued through
habeas

corpus

since

he

challenges

the

validity

of

his

conviction and the resolution of his claims may entitle him to
immediate or early release. Serio v. Members of La. State Bd.
of Pardons, 821 F.2d 1112 (5th Cir. 1987); Clark v. Williams,
693 F.2d 381 (5th Cir. 1982).
Additionally, unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that
a court or other authorized tribunal has determined that his
constitutional

rights

were

violated

2

during

his

criminal

See United States of America v. Lonnie Poydras, CR 09-121RET-CN (M.D. La.). A court may take judicial notice of the record
in prior related proceedings.
Missionary Baptist Foundation of
America, Inc. v. Wilson, 712 F.2d 206 (5th Cir. 1983). The court
hereby takes judicial notice of the plaintiff’s criminal
proceedings in CR 09-121-RET-CN.
3

proceedings, he has no damages claim against these defendants
cognizable under § 1983. See, Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477,
114 S.Ct. 2364 (1994) (in order to recover damages for an
allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for
other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render
a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must
prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on
direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid
by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or
called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ
of habeas corpus).
Plaintiff’s
holding in Heck.

claims

fall

squarely

he

has

the

Court’s

Plaintiff’s complaint calls into question

the lawfulness of his confinement.
that

within

successfully

Plaintiff failed to show

challenged

sentence in any other proceeding.

his

confinement

or

Plaintiff offered no proof

that his conviction has been reversed, expunged set aside by
a state court, or called into question by a federal court’s
issuance

of

a

writ

of

habeas

corpus.

Therefore,

the

plaintiff’s claim is not cognizable under § 1983 at this time.
Plaintiff’s sole federal remedy to challenge the fact or
duration of his confinement is a writ of habeas corpus.

4

Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 93 S.Ct. 1827 (1973).
Because Heck dictates that a cause of action seeking
damages

under

§

1983

for

an

allegedly

unconstitutional

imprisonment does not accrue until the conviction has been
invalidated, the § 1983 complaint should be dismissed with
prejudice.

Stephenson v. Reno, 28 F.3d 26 (5th Cir. 1994);

Boyd v. Biggers, 31 F.3d 279 (5th Cir. 1994); Arvie v.
Broussard, 42 F.3d 249 (5th Cir. 1994).
Because it is clear that the plaintiff’s claim has no
arguable basis in fact or in law and the allegations fail to
state a claim, the complaint should be dismissed pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
Judgment shall be entered accordingly.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, April

27th

, 2011.

7

RALPH E. TYSON, CHIEF JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

5