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.

Roberts v. Emanuel

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

April 27, 2015

BRYAN CLAYTON ROBERTS,
v.
LEON L. EMANUEL, III., 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 Bryan Clayton Roberts ("Plaintiff"), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This complaint was received and filed in this court on October 29, 2012. Plaintiff is incarcerated at the Louisiana State Penitentiary in Angola, Louisiana. Plaintiff names Judge Leon L. Emanuel, III., Officer Paula Moreno, Latonya Hocker, Assistant District Attorney Geya D. Williams Prudhomme, and Attorney Wayne K Dishman as defendants.

Plaintiff claims he was convicted of molestation of a juvenile and sentenced to twenty (20) years imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of probation or parole. He claims his conviction was based on hearsay evidence and not physical evidence. He claims the victim's mother has a history of making unreliable and untrustworthy statements in court. He also claims the victim's mother has coerced her other children into making false allegations. Plaintiff claims that during his trial, the victim changed her story about being molested by another man. He claims the victim's testimony is therefore unreliable and untrustworthy.

Plaintiff claims that during his grand jury proceedings on May 25, 2005, the victim stated another man had molested her and no investigation was conducted and no charges were ever filed against him. He claims this is a violation of his equal protection rights. He also claims the pattern of false allegations of sexual molestation was important to his defense.

Plaintiff claims Defendants failed to acknowledge that another crime was committed against the victim. He also claims Defendants failed to protect the victim.

Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks an investigation of his criminal conviction and Defendants and their credibility. He also seeks to have the other man investigated for his alleged molestation of the victim.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

Heck Claims

Plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief for an alleged unconstitutional conviction and sentence. The United States Supreme Court held that in order to recover monetary compensation or damages 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, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 2372 (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, 117 S.Ct. 1584, 1589, 137 L.Ed.2d 906 (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 injunctive relief for civil rights violations under Section 1983; therefore, he must prove that his conviction and/or sentence have been invalidated. He has not met this precondition and his complaint must be dismissed until such time that he can ...


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.