United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
STEVEN R. WILLIAMS
LYNDA VAN DAVIS ET AL.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
C. WILKINSON, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Steven R. Williams, is a prisoner currently incarcerated in
the Louisiana State Penitentiary (“Angola”) in
Angola, Louisiana. He filed this complaint pro se and in
forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against
former Orleans Parish Criminal District Judge Lynda Van Davis
and his former defense counsel, Jason Roger Williams. Record
Doc. No. 3 (Amended Complaint). In summary, plaintiff asserts
(1) Judge Van Davis and defense counsel Williams acted
“as if they did not know what [was] going on”
when he was indicted under Orleans Parish Criminal District
Court Division “B” Case No. 444-752, which was
not timely prosecuted and “was dismissed” by the
District Attorney's office. Id. at p. 4 (Section
(2) Judge Van Davis is “hiding the DA [Office's]
first indictment in Case No. 439-481, ” which is still
pending in a different section of the Orleans Parish Criminal
Court. Id.; p. 6, ¶ A.
(3) Judge Van Davis and defense counsel Williams did not
proceed under pending Case No. 439-481, which was transferred
to Judge Van Davis's section but proceeded instead under
the “nonexistent” Case No. 444-752, which was
dismissed by the District Attorney's office. Id.
at p. 7, ¶ B.
(4) In April 2005, over a year after Case No. 444-752 was
dismissed on February 10, 2004, he was “taken to a mock
(fake) trial and voidly convicted” and sentenced to
life imprisonment in the non-existent Case No. 444-752.
Id., ¶¶ C and H.
seeks an injunction, copies of the transcripts from a status
hearing conducted on February 10, 2004, concerning Case No.
444-752, and that the District Attorney's office
“show from [the] transcripts or court minute entry
where Case No. 439-481 was dismissed by the D.A.['s]
office.” Id. at p. 5, ¶ V.
STANDARDS OF REVIEW
prisoner's pro se complaint for alleged civil rights
violations must be screened by the court as soon as
practicable after docketing, regardless of whether it has
also been filed in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a);
Lewis v. Estes, 242 F.3d 375, 2000 WL 1673382, at *1
(8th Cir. 2006); Shakur v. Selsky, 391 F.3d 106, 112
(2d Cir. 2004); Martin v. Scott, 156 F.3d 578,
579-80 (5th Cir. 1998). Such complaints by prisoners and by
others proceeding in forma pauperis must be dismissed upon
review if they are frivolous or fail to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted or seek monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)
complaint is frivolous “if it lacks an arguable basis
in law or fact.” Davis v. Scott, 157 F.3d
1003, 1005 (5th Cir. 1998); Reeves v. Collins, 27
F.3d 174, 176 (5th Cir. 1994). The law “‘accords
judges not only the authority to dismiss a claim based on an
indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual
power to pierce the veil of the complaint's factual
allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual
contentions are clearly baseless.'” Macias v.
Raul A. (Unknown), Badge No. 153, 23 F.3d 94, 97 (5th
Cir. 1994) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 327 (1989)).
complaint lacks an arguable basis in law if it is based on an
indisputably meritless legal theory, such as if the complaint
alleges the violation of a legal interest which clearly does
not exist.'” Davis, 157 F.3d at 1005
(quoting McCormick v. Stalder, 105 F.3d 1059, 1061
(5th Cir. 1997)). “When a complaint raises an arguable
question of law which the district court ultimately finds is
correctly resolved against the plaintiff, dismissal under
Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate; however, dismissal under the
section 1915(d) standard is not.” Moore v.
Mabus, 976 F.2d 268, 269 (5th Cir. 1992).
case, plaintiff's Section 1983 complaint must be
dismissed either as legally frivolous, for failure to state a
claim or because it seeks relief from one defendant who is
immune and ...