United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Alexandria Division
FOREST C. HAMMOND-MARTIN, SR.
ANTHONY J. MARABELLA, JR., JUDGE, et al.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
H.L. Perez-Montes United States Magistrate Judge.
C. Hammond-Martin, Sr. (“Hammond-Martin”), a
resident of Alexandria, Louisiana, filed a complaint pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his rights
under 18 U.S.C. § 1584, 18 U.S.C. § 241, the 14th
Amendment, the 13th Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 42
U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1985, and the Louisiana
Code of Criminal Procedure Articles 551-559. The named
defendants are Anthony J. Marabella, Jr.
(“Marabella”), Judge, Nineteenth Judicial
District Court in East Baton Rouge Parish, and Hillar Moore
(“Moore”), District Attorney of East Baton Rouge
contends he was wrongfully incarcerated in 1978 pursuant to a
conviction entered in the Louisiana Nineteenth Judicial
District in East Baton Rouge Parish. Hammond-Martin shows he
received a commuted sentence (to time served) in 1980 from
then-Governor Edwards (Doc. 1-2). Hammond-Martin alleges that
Judge Marabella wrongfully denied his motion to
“correct, vacate, and set aside the illegal
sentence.” Hammond contends that, although the record
indicated that he pleaded guilty, the record showed he did
not actually enter a guilty plea and was not
“boykinized.” Hammond-Martin further alleges that he
has been denied employment because the East Baton Rouge
Police Department reported to his prospective employer
(during a background check) that he is a convicted felon.
Hammond-Martin contends Judge Marabella told his secretary to
tell Hammond-Martin that he needed to talk to D.A. Moore
about his claims, but Moore refused to speak with him.
seeks to have his 1973 conviction and sentence vacated and to
have his criminal record expunged.
Law and Analysis
it is noted that a § 1983 complaint should be filed in
the District Court where the complained-of events occurred.
In this case, that would be the Middle District of Louisiana.
However, since it is not clear whether this is a § 1983
complaint or a habeas petition, neither of which is properly
before a federal court, the complaint is addressed in this
petition to have a state conviction vacated and criminal
record expunged should be brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254. However, Hammond-Martin is no longer in custody,
and was not when he filed this complaint. Therefore, he does
not meet the “in custody” requirement for a
habeas petition. See Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 430
(1963); Carter v. Procunier, 755 F.2d 1126, 1129
(5th Cir. 1985).
Hammond-Martin filed his complaint pursuant to § 1983,
although he is not seeking compensation for civil rights
violations. Hammond-Martin's motions to vacate a
state criminal conviction and to expunge his state record
cannot be brought before a federal court in a § 1983
Hammond-Martin's complaint should be dismissed without
on the foregoing, IT IS RECOMMNEDED that Hammond-Martin's
complaint be DENIED AND DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) and
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), parties aggrieved by this Report and
Recommendation have fourteen (14) calendar days from service
of this Report and Recommendation to file specific, written
objections with the Clerk of Court. A party may respond to
another party's objections within fourteen (14) days
after being served with a copy thereof. No other briefs (such
as supplemental objections, reply briefs, etc.) may be filed.
Providing a courtesy copy of the ...