Opinion
Civil Action 21-335-JWD-SDJ
09-13-2022
THOMAS EARL FORD (#002497) v. FREDERICK THORTON, JR., ET AL.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
SCOTT D. JOHNSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The pro se Plaintiff, an inmate formerly confined at the Catahoula Correctional Center, Harrisonburg, Louisiana, filed this proceeding pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Frederick Thorton, Jr., and the Baton Rouge Police, complaining that his constitutional rights have been violated due to a wrongful arrest. Plaintiff requests monetary and injunctive relief.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A, this Court is authorized to dismiss an action or claim brought by a prisoner who is proceeding in forma pauperis or is asserting a claim against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity if satisfied that the action or claim is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. An action or claim 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, 31 (1992), citing Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Hicks v. Garner, 69 F.3d 22, 24-25 (5th Cir. 1995). A claim is factually frivolous if the alleged facts are “clearly baseless, a category encompassing allegations that are ‘fanciful,' ‘fantastic,' and ‘delusional.'” Id. at 32-33. A claim has no arguable basis in law if it is based upon an indisputably meritless legal theory, “such as if the complaint alleges the violation of a legal interest which clearly does not exist.” Davis v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1003, 1005 (5th Cir. 1998). The law accords judges not only the authority to dismiss a claim which is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual power to pierce the veil of the factual allegations. Denton v. Hernandez, supra, 504 U.S. at 32. Pleaded facts which are merely improbable or strange, however, are not frivolous for purposes of § 1915. Id. at 33; Ancar v. Sara Plasma, Inc., 964 F.2d 465, 468 (5th Cir. 1992). A § 1915 dismissal may be made any time, before or after service or process and before or after an answer is filed, if the court determines that the allegation of poverty is untrue, or the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and Green v. McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1116, 1119 (5th Cir. 1986).
In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that on December 28, 2020, he was pulled over for having dark tinted windows. Plaintiff was asked for his identification and was then placed into the police car. Plaintiff was not advised of his Miranda rights. He requests that all charges be dismissed and for monetary compensation for emotional stress.
With regards to any claims Plaintiff may be asserting against the Baton Rouge Police Department, section 1983 only imposes liability on a “person” who violates another's constitutional rights under color of law. In accordance with Rule 17(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Louisiana law governs whether a person or entity can be sued. Under Louisiana law, to possess such a capacity, an entity must qualify as a “juridical person.” This term is defined by the Louisiana Civil Code as an “entity to which the law attributes personality, such as a corporation or partnership.” See La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 24. Louisiana courts uniformly hold that sheriff's offices or sheriff's departments are not juridical entities. Sipes v. City of Monroe, 2013 WL 1282457 at *3 (W.D. La. Mar. 28, 2013) (collecting cases). Additionally, a parish or municipal jail is “not an entity, but a building.” Savoy v. St. Landry Parish Council, 2008 WL 4822269 at *3 (W.D. La. Oct. 10, 2008). Here, the Baton Rouge Police Department is not a juridical entity and cannot be sued.
Additionally, the allegations of the Complaint pertain to criminal proceedings in state court. Under the well-established doctrine set out in Younger v. Harris, 91 S.Ct. 746, 750-51 (1971), federal courts cannot interfere in state criminal proceedings unless extraordinary circumstances are present. See Gates v. Strain, 885 F.3d 874, 880 (5th Cir. 2018). Plaintiff has not alleged that he lacks an adequate opportunity to raise his constitutional challenges in the state court or that extraordinary circumstances otherwise warrant federal intervention. Additionally, consideration of Plaintiff's claim for monetary damages would implicate the validity of the ongoing state criminal court proceedings. As such, Plaintiff's claim for monetary damages is barred by the doctrine set forth in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).
Finally, to the extent that Plaintiff's allegations may be interpreted as seeking to invoke the supplemental jurisdiction of this court over potential state law claims, a district court may decline the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction if a plaintiff's state law claims raise novel or complex issues of state law, if the claims substantially predominate over the claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction, if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, or for other compelling reasons. 28 U.S.C. § 1367. In the instant case, having recommended that Plaintiff's federal claims be dismissed, the Court further recommends that the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction be declined.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Court decline the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over any potential state law claims, and that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A.
Plaintiff is advised that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) provides that, “In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section [Proceedings in forma pauperis] if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.”