Opinion
Civil Action 24-17-BAJ-RLB
07-03-2024
MICHAEL NELSON (#722134) v. JAMES M. LEBLANC, ET AL.
NOTICE
RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Please take notice that the attached Magistrate Judge's Report has been filed with the Clerk of the United States District Court.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), you have fourteen (14) days after being served with the attached Report to file written objections to the proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations therein. Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations within 14 days after being served will bar you, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge which have been accepted by the District Court.
ABSOLUTELY NO EXTENSION OF TIME SHALL BE GRANTED TO FILE WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT.
Signed.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The pro se Plaintiff, an inmate confined at the West Baton Rouge Detention Center, Port Allen, Louisiana, filed this proceeding pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against James M. LeBlanc and an unspecified number of John and Jane Does who are employees of the Department of Corrections. Plaintiff complains that his constitutional rights have been violated due to a sentencing error, miscalculation of his release date, and seven months of over detention. Plaintiff requests monetary relief.
28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A
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).
Plaintiff's Allegations
In his Complaint, as amended, Plaintiff alleges the following: On May 16, 2017, the plaintiff was convicted of aggravated assault with a firearm in the 21st Judicial District Court for the Parish of Tangipahoa. The plaintiff's ten-year sentence was suspended, and the plaintiff was placed on active probation for a period of five years.
On March 1, 2018, the plaintiff was arrested on federal drug charges instituted in this Court. On March 12, 2018, a state probation hold was placed pending the outcome of the plaintiff's federal charges. Prior to the plaintiff's federal charges being resolved, the plaintiff's state probation was revoked on May 9, 2023, and the plaintiff's original sentence of ten years was imposed.
On October 4, 2023, the Department of Corrections erroneously calculated the plaintiff's projected release date as September 2, 2026. The calculation did not include any credit for time served from when the plaintiff was arrested on March 1, 2018, through the date the plaintiff was sentenced on May 9, 2023. The state court judge failed to include in the sentencing order that the plaintiff should be awarded credit for this time and the Department of Corrections has failed to include it in his release calculation contrary to state law. Due to the improper training and supervision of the Department of Corrections' employees, the plaintiff is being forced to serve his ten-year sentence twice. The plaintiff has been over detained for 7 months.
Validity of Confinement
First, Plaintiff's claims call into question the validity of his confinement; therefore, this claim is subject to dismissal because it may only be pursued in a habeas corpus proceeding. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973) (“[W]hen a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus”). Additionally, 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.
It does not appear that the plaintiff's release date failed to account for the time in custody since his arrest in 2018. The Master Record (R. Doc. 1 at 21) reflects a 10 year sentence with a full-term date (FTD) of March 2, 2028. This is exactly 10 years from the date of arrest and custody and therefore accounts for his time spent in custody prior to his revocation and sentencing. The trial court did order that the plaintiff receive credit for time served, and that credit has been applied in the plaintiff's sentencing calculation. See R. Doc. 1, p. 18 and 21.
Monetary Damages
Further, Plaintiff's claim for monetary damages associated with his continued confinement is barred pursuant to the rule stated in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Under Heck, a prisoner's claim for monetary damages attributable to an alleged wrongful conviction or term of confinement is not cognizable in federal court whenever “a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence.” Id. at 487. If so, “the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated,” either by state officials or through federal habeas corpus. Id. Were this Court to determine that Plaintiff is entitled to monetary damages, this would necessarily imply that Plaintiff's term of confinement was invalid. Since Plaintiff has failed to allege or show that his term of confinement has been invalidated or called into question in a separate proceeding, either in a state proceeding or through federal habeas corpus, Plaintiff's claim for monetary damages falls squarely within the holding of Heck v. Humphrey and must be dismissed. Accordingly, Plaintiff's claim for monetary damages arising out of the alleged unconstitutional term of confinement resulting from a miscalculation of his release date must be dismissed as it has not yet accrued.
Supplemental Jurisdiction
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.”
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on July 3, 2024.