Opinion
Civil 3:23-CV-01743
07-01-2024
MONTREAL LINN, Plaintiff v. TERRY A DOUGHTY, Defendants
EDWARDS JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
JOSEPH H.L. PEREZ-MONTES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before the Court is a civil Complaint (ECF No. 1) and a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2) filed by pro se Plaintiff Montreal Linn (“Linn”). Linn seeks damages from the Chief Judge of this District for alleged, but unspecified, violations of “rights” and “discrimination.” ECF No. 1 at 4.
Because Linn fails to state a viable claim and states claims barred by immunity, the Complaint (ECF No. 1) should be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and the Motion (ECF No. 2) should be DENIED as MOOT.
I. Background
Linn provides no factual allegations in his Complaint. His allegations are conclusory throughout. He merely seeks damages for unspecified “discrimination” by Judge Doughty.
II. Law and Analysis
To proceed in forma pauperis, a plaintiff must meet certain financial and legal prerequisites. The plaintiff's claim must not be frivolous or malicious; the complaint must state a claim for which relief may be granted; and the complaint must not seek monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If a complaint does not meet the threshold requirements, the court “must dismiss the case.” Id.
Section 1915(e)(2) applies equally to prisoner and non-prisoner in forma pauperis cases. See Newsome v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 301 F.3d 227, 231-33 (5th Cir. 2002) (affirming dismissal of non-prisoner claims for frivolity and failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii)).
Linn has filed 20 suits in this Court alone since December 2022 alleging the violation of his rights, including one against another judge of this Court. See Linn v. McClusky, 3:23-CV-540 (W.D. La.). Linn makes no attempt to explain how the Chief District Judge is conceivably responsible for whatever constitutional injury he is alleging-which is itself unclear.
Linn's other lawsuits include: Linn v. U Chain, 3:22-cv-06258; Linn v. Ouachita American Job Center, 3:22-cv-06259; Linn v. Ouachita Parish et al., 3:23-cv-00424; Linn v. Louisiana Workforce Commission, 3:23-cv-00547; Linn v. Bennett, 3:23-cv-00548; Linn v. Mitchell, 3:23-cv-00549; Linn v. Ouachita American Job Center, 3:23-cv-00550; Linn v. Ouachita Parish, 3:23-cv-00551; Linn v. City of Monroe et al, 3:23-cv-00552; Linn v. Monroe, 3:23-cv-00574; Linn v. Coleman, 3:23-cv-00575; Linn v. Healthy Blue, et al, 3:23-cv-00706; Linn v. Ouachita American Job Center et al, 3:23-cv-00716; Linn v. Monroe et al, 3:23-cv-00718; Linn v. Louisiana Division of Administrative Law et al, 3:23-cv-01300; Linn v. Jonnett Product Enterprises et al, 3:23-cv-01301; Linn v. Ouachita Parish Career Solution et al, 3:23-cv-01583; Linn v. Ouachita Parish Career Solution et al, 3:23-cv-01584.
To the extent Linn seeks relief from the Chief Judge for rulings made in other cases, the Chief Judge is immune from suit. A judge's actions are protected by absolute judicial immunity, which is overcome in only two scenarios: (1) where the actions are “not taken in the judge's judicial capacity”; or (2) where they are “taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.” Morrison v. Walker, 704 Fed.Appx. 369, 372-73 (5th Cir. 2017) (citing Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991) (per curiam)).
Even allegations of bad faith or malice cannot overcome judicial immunity. See Mireles, 502 U.S. at 11.
Linn provides no allegations indicating that the Chief Judge acted outside of his judicial capacity or without jurisdiction. Nor do his conclusory allegations sate a viable claim of any kind, even absent the clear applicability of judicial immunity in this case.
III. Conclusion
Because Linn fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted and seeks relief from an immune Defendant, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Complaint (ECF No. 1) be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and that the Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2) be DENIED as MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Linn be warned that filing additional frequent and frivolous pleadings will result in sanctions and monetary fines that he must pay before filing any other lawsuit this Court.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), a party may file written objections to this Report and Recommendation within 14 days of service, unless the Court grants an extension of time to file objections under Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b). A party may also respond to another party's objections to this Report and Recommendation within 14 days of service of those objections, again unless the Court grants an extension of time to file a response to objections.
No other briefs may be filed without leave of court, which will only be granted for good cause. A party's failure to timely file written objections to this Report and Recommendation will bar a party from later challenging factual or legal conclusions adopted by the District Judge, except if the challenge asserts “plain error.”