United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Monroe Division
ROGERS V. ATKINS
DISTRICT ATTORNEY MOREHOUSE PARISH, ET AL. v.
A. DOUGHTY JUDGE.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
L. HAYES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
se plaintiff Rogers V. Atkins, proceeding in forma
pauperis, filed the instant civil rights complaint on
November 16, 2017. He names as defendants District Attorney
Morehouse Parish, Eddie H. Delamar, Lori Lainy, Gracie
Pittman Drummond, R.W. Kostelka, Sheriffs Office Morehouse
Parish, Lori Laing, Allen Harvey and Parish of Morehouse.
This matter has been referred to the undersigned for review,
report, and recommendation in accordance with the provisions
of 28 U.S.C. §636 and the standing orders of the Court.
For the following reasons it is recommended that the
complaint be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous and for
failing to state a claim for which relief may be granted.
of the Case
plaintiff asks this Court to declare that the fraudulent
“acts and omissions” by the defendants, which
occurred during his criminal proceedings in Morehouse Parish
in the 1980s, violated his constitutional
rights. He was indicted on March 9, 1982, and
prosecuted on May 17, 1983 on one count of first degree
prisoner is allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in
a suit against an officer or employee of a governmental
entity pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, the court is obliged
to evaluate the complaint and dismiss it without service of
process, if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary
relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28
U.S.C. §1915A; 28 U.S.C.§1915(e)(2). Ali v.
Higgs, 892 F.2d 438, 440 (5th Cir.1990). A civil rights
complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted if it appears that no relief could be granted under
any set of facts that could be proven consistent with the
allegations of the complaint. Of course, in making this
determination, the court must assume that all of the
plaintiff's factual allegations are true. Bradley v.
Puckett, 7 F.3d 1022');">157 F.3d 1022, 1025 (5th Cir.1998).
rights plaintiff must support his claims with specific facts
demonstrating a constitutional deprivation and may not simply
rely on conclusory allegations. Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S.662, 7');">129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (A
court should begin its analysis by “identifying
pleadings that, because they are no more than conclusions,
are not entitled to the assumption of truth. While legal
conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they
must be supported by factual allegations. When there are
well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their
veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise
to an entitlement to relief.”); Schultea v.
Wood, 7 F.3d 1427');">47 F.3d 1427, 1433 (5th Cir.1995). Nevertheless, a
district court is bound by the allegations in a
plaintiff's complaint and is “not free to speculate
that the plaintiff ‘might' be able to state a claim
if given yet another opportunity to add more facts to the
complaint.” Macias v. Raul A. (Unknown) Badge No.
153, 23 F.3d at 97.
hearing need not be conducted for every pro se
complaint. Wilson v. Barrientos, 926 F.2d 480, 483
n. 4 (5th Cir.1991). A district court may dismiss a
prisoner's civil rights complaint as frivolous based upon
the complaint and exhibits alone. Green v. McKaskle,
788 F.2d 1116');">788 F.2d 1116, 1120 (5th Cir.1986). Courts are not only
vested with the authority to dismiss a claim based on an
indisputably meritless legal theory, but are also afforded
the unusual power to pierce the veil of the factual
allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual
contentions are clearly baseless. Neiztke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, 7');">109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d
Supreme Court has held that the statute of limitations for a
§1983 action is the same as the statute of limitations
in a personal injury action in the state in which the claim
accrues. Wilson v. Garcia, 71 U.S. 261');">471 U.S. 261, 279-280,
105 S.Ct. 1938, 85 L.Ed.2d 254 (1984). However, the date of
accrual for a §1983 claim is a question of federal law.
Piotrowski v. City of Houston, 51 F.3d 512 (5th Cir.
1995); Longoria v. City of Bay City, 779 F.2d 1136');">779 F.2d 1136
(5th Cir. 1986). “Under federal law, the limitations
period commences when the aggrieved party has either
knowledge of the violation or notice of facts which, in the
exercise of due diligence, would have led to actual knowledge
thereof.” Piotrowski, 51 F.3d at 516, quoting
Vigman v. Community National Bank and Trust Co., 635
F.2d 455, 459 (5th Cir. 1981). A plaintiff need not realize
that a legal cause of action exists but only that the facts
support a claim. See, Harrison v. United
States, 708 F.2d 1023');">708 F.2d 1023, 1027 (5th Cir. 1983). The Fifth
Circuit has approved application of Louisiana's one-year
personal injury statute of limitations provided by La.
Civ.Code Ann. art 3492 in a §1983 action. Lavellee
v. Listi, 611 F.2d 1129 (5th Cir. 1980).
complaint establishes that he first had knowledge of the
defendants' alleged unconstitutional acts when he was
indicted in 1982, or at least in May 1983, when he was
prosecuted. Plaintiff therefore had 1-year, or until May
1984, at the latest, to file his civil rights complaint
claiming that defendants deprived him of his constitutional
rights. Plaintiff's complaint was filed on November 16,
2017, nearly 35 years beyond the expiration ...