Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Samuels v. Pierce

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Shreveport Division

April 9, 2015

ONTARIO SAMUELS,
v.
LEONARD PIERCE, ET AL

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

MARK L. HORNSBY, Magistrate Judge.

In accordance with the standing order of this court, this matter was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for review, report, and recommendation.

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

Before the court is a civil rights complaint filed by pro se plaintiff Ontario Samuels ("Plaintiff"), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This complaint was received and filed in this court on June 7, 2013. Plaintiff is incarcerated at the Natchitoches Parish Detention Center in Natchitoches, Louisiana. He names Parole Officer Leonard Pierce, Parole Officer William Tuggle, Sheriff Steve Prator, Detective Excude, Lt. Winget, Judge Ramona Emanuel, and District Attorney Charles Rex Scott as defendants.

Plaintiff claims that on May 10, 2007, Parole Officer Leonard Price forced him to register as a sex offender. He claims that when he informed Price that he was not a sex offender, Price threatened to incarcerate him if he did not register. Plaintiff claims Sheriff Steve Prator, Detective Excude, and Lt. Winget conspired with the parole office to force him to register as a sex offender when they attached his social security number with another person's social security number. He claims Parole Officer Tuggle refused to correct the matter.

Plaintiff claims he was incarcerated in 2008 on a parole violation because he was forced to register as a sex offender. He claims he was released in 2012.

Plaintiff claims that on February 15, 2013, he called the Caddo Parish Sheriff Department for help regarding the requirement that he register as a sex offender. He claims that a warrant was then issued for his arrest for failure to register as a sex offender. He claims that on February 18, 2013, he was taken into custody by Parole Officer Milam and booked under two different names and social security numbers. He claims he was not read his Miranda rights.

Plaintiff claims that on April 22, 2013, he appeared before Judge Ramona Emanuel for the charge of failure to register as a sex offender. Plaintiff claims that on April 23, 2013 and April 29, 2013, he wrote to Judge Emanuel informing her of the social security issue and that he was not a sex offender. Plaintiff claims that on May 2, 2013, he wrote to District Attorney Charles Scott and informed him of the situation.

On February 4, 2014, Plaintiff pleaded guilty to one count of failure to register as a sex offender in Louisiana's First Judicial District Court, Parish of Caddo. He was sentenced to three years imprisonment at hard labor. See Samuels v. Warden, 5:14-cv-1812.

Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks to have his social security number corrected, Defendants terminated, and monetary compensation.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

Plaintiff is seeking monetary damages and declaratory and injunctive relief for allegedly unconstitutional convictions and sentences. The United States Supreme Court held that in order to recover monetary compensation for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or sentence or for "harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, " a prisoner must show 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." Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). Courts have also extended the holding in Heck to claims seeking injunctive or declaratory relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997); Clark v. Stalder, 154 F.3d 186, 190-91 (5th Cir. 1998). Heck involved a civil rights claim brought by a state prisoner. The court dismissed the Section 1983 suit until plaintiff could demonstrate that his conviction or sentence had been invalidated.

When a claim comes within the parameters of the Heck teachings, it is not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 so long as the validity of the conviction or sentence has not been called into question as defined therein, which requires dismissal of claims not meeting its preconditions for suit. See Johnson v. McElveen, 101 F.3d 423, 424 (5th Cir. 1996).

Plaintiff is seeking monetary damages and declaratory and injunctive relief for civil rights violations under Section 1983; therefore, he must prove his convictions or sentences have been invalidated. He has not met this precondition and his complaint must be dismissed until such time that ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.