United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Alexandria Division
WARREN T. GREEN, Plaintiff
JACQUE DERR, ET AL., Defendants
JUDGE DEE D. DRELL
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
H.L. Perez-Montes United States Magistrate Judge
the Court is a civil rights complaint (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
filed by pro se Plaintiff Warren T. Green (#352460)
(“Green”). Green was granted leave to proceed
in forma pauperis. (Doc. 8). Green is a pretrial
detainee at the Jackson Parish Detention Center in Jonesboro,
Louisiana. Green complains that he was wrongfully arrested
and incarcerated for failing to register as a sex offender.
(Doc. 5, p. 4). Green seeks monetary damages, the dismissal
of charges, and a release from jail.
Green's criminal charge of failing to register remains
pending in state court, his § 1983 claim for damages
should be stayed pending the outcome of the criminal
proceeding. Green's request for the dismissal of criminal
charges and his release from custody should be dismissed, as
such relief is not available under § 1983.
alleges that he “checked in with Deputy
Fitzgerald” to update his sex offender registry
information. (Doc. 5, p. 3). Green returned three days later
to pay certain fees and sign a contract. (Doc. 5, p. 3).
Three months later, Green was arrested by Detective Kelly
Fannin for failing to register as a sex offender. Green
complains that parole officer Danny Green ignored his urgings
to review Green's contract. Green alleges his arrest was
without probable cause because Judge Derr “ignored the
facts” when signing the warrant. (Doc. 5, p. 3).
complains that, after speaking with his attorney, Detective
Kelly Fannin informed Green that he was being charged with
distribution of hydrocodone. (Doc. 5, p. 4). Detective Fannin
did not advise Green of his Miranda rights, and ignored
Green's request to speak with his attorney. Eventually,
Fannin placed Green “in the hole.” Fannin advised
Green he was being charged with distribution of hydrocodone
and resisting an officer. (Doc. 5, p. 5).
original complaint, Green states that some charges were
dropped, but he does not specify which charges. Green was
ordered to amend his complaint to state which charges were
dismissed and which remain pending.
amended complaint, Green does not mention the dismissal of
any charges. Green reiterates that he was arraigned and
incarcerated for distribution of hydrocodone and failing to
register as a sex offender. Green claims his arrest and
detention for failing to register as a sex offender are
unlawful, as he is not required to register.
Law and Analysis
Green's complaint is subject to screening under
§§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A.
is a prisoner who has been allowed to proceed in forma
pauperis. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915A provides for the
preliminary screening of lawsuits filed by prisoners seeking
redress from an officer or employee of a governmental entity.
See Martin v. Scott, 156 F.3d 578, 579-80
(5th Cir. 1998) (per curiam); Rosborough v. Mgmt. and
Training Corp., 350 F.3d 459, 461 (5th Cir. 2003).
Because Green is proceeding in forma pauperis, his
complaint is also subject to screening under §
1915(e)(2). Both §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)
provide for sua sponte dismissal of the complaint,
or any portion thereof, if the Court finds it is frivolous or
malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief.
Green's claim for damages should be
claims that his arrest and detention for failing to register
as a sex offender are unlawful because he is not required to
register. In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87
(1994), the Supreme Court held that “a plaintiff who
seeks to recover damages under § 1983 for actions whose
unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid
must first prove that the conviction or sentence has been
reversed, expunged, invalidated, or otherwise called into
question.” Id. A § 1983 claim falls under
the rule of Heck only when a judgment in ...