United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MICHAEL B. NORTH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
above-captioned matter previously came before the Court
pursuant to Local Rule 72.1(B)(1) for a determination of
pauper status under 28 U.S.C. §1915. (Rec. docs. 2, 3).
The pertinent portions of the latter statute direct a court
to dismiss a case at any time it is determined that the
action is frivolous or malicious or fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C.
§1915(e)(2)(B). For the reasons that follow, it is
recommended that this matter be dismissed as frivolous,
malicious, and/or for failing to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.
Harrison, Plaintiff/Petitioner herein, is an inmate of the
Louisiana State Penitentiary in Angola, Louisiana, who is
serving a sentence of life imprisonment following his October
5, 1999 conviction for armed robbery and his subsequent
adjudication and sentencing as a multiple offender. See
State v. Harrison, 782 So.2d 86 (La.App. 4th Cir. 2001).
In the self-styled pleading that he submitted in this matter,
which is wholly devoid of any discussion of the basis for
this Court's jurisdiction, Harrison names as the
Defendant(s)/Respondent(s) herein the State of Louisiana and,
ostensibly, former Judge Leon A. Cannizzaro, Jr., Public
Defender Joseph Meyer, Assistant District Attorneys Norman
Comeaux and Jonathan Friedman, and Court Reporters Melinda M.
Hebert and Eve S. Kazik, “… all affiliated with
Criminal District Court Section ‘J, ' case 409-642,
for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana.” (Rec.
doc. 1, p. 1). In this, Harrison's latest attempt at
upsetting his valid conviction,  he alleges, in a wholly
conclusory fashion, that the Defendant(s)/Respondent(s)
“… prior to trial, falsified records,
manufactured hearings and doing (sic) trial perjury took
place” and otherwise acted illegally with respect to
his trial, resulting in his present conviction and
incarceration. (Id.). Harrison then goes on to
relate that he previously lodged a judicial-misconduct
complaint against former Judge Cannizzaro with the Louisiana
Judiciary Commission under No. 00-1875 but that said tribunal
has not made a recommendation to the Louisiana Supreme Court
regarding any possible action to be taken against the former
Judge. (Id. at pp. 1-2). Harrison thus petitions the
Court to order the Louisiana Judiciary Commission to make a
recommendation on his complaint and to forward same to the
Louisiana Supreme Court for its consideration. (Id.
at pp. 2-3). Alternatively, he asks that this Court somehow
“take jurisdiction” over the matter.(Id. at p. 3).
first form of relief sought by Harrison sounds in the nature
of mandamus, i.e., an order directing the Louisiana
Judiciary Commission to act on a matter that is allegedly
before. it To the extent that Harrison's request in that
regard is not moot, see note 2, supra, as
he should be abundantly aware from the three
mandamus petitions that he has previously filed here,
federal courts lack the general power to issue writs of
mandamus to direct state courts, state entities, and state
judges and judicial officials in the performance of their
duties. McGrew v. Dufrense, No. 09-CV-6515, 2011 WL
765812 at *6-7 (E.D. La. Jan. 28, 2011), adopted,
2011 WL 766074 (E.D. La. Feb. 24, 2011), appeal
dis'd, No. 11-30290 (5th Cir. June 2,
2011)(unpublished order), cert. denied, 565 U.S.
1015, 132 S.Ct. 552 (2011)(mandamus to Louisiana Judiciary
Commission). To the extent that this matter can be construed
as a action under 42 U.S.C. §1983 against the six
ostensible Defendants, it is duplicative of Harrison v.
Hebert, et al., No. 02-CV-2299 “J” (2) and
is thus subject to being dismissed as malicious under
§1915(e)(2)(B). Pittman v. Moore, 980 F.2d 994
(5th Cir. 1993); Wilson v. Lynaugh, 878
F.2d 846, 850 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S.
969, 110 S.Ct. 417 (1989); Bailey v. Johnson, 846
F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988). Finally, it would be wholly
inappropriate to construe this matter as a request for habeas
corpus relief because Harrison has not obtained authorization
from the Fifth Circuit to file a successive habeas petition
as required by 28 U.S.C. §2244(b)(3). Luna v. Judge
of the Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, No.
10-CV-3641, 2010 WL 4812988 at *2 (E.D. La. Oct. 26, 2010),
adopted, 2010 WL 4812982 (E.D. La. Nov. 18,
foregoing reasons, it is recommended that this matter be
dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
partys failure to file written objections to the proposed
findings, conclusions, and recommendation contained in a
magistrate judges report and recommendation within 14 days
after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except
upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the
unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions
accepted by the district court, provided that the party has
been served with notice that such consequences will result
from a failure to object. Douglass v. United States Auto.
Assoc, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996)(en
 Harrison has previously and
unsuccessfully challenged his conviction on habeas corpus
grounds, Harrison v. Cain, No. 02-CV-3527
“J” (4)(E.D. La. Nov. 21, 2003), cert. of
app. denied, No. 03-31164 (5th Cir. Apr. 27,
2004)(unpublished order), and no less than five
subsequent habeas petitions were deemed to be prohibited as
successive under 28 U.S.C. §2244. See No.
15-CV-6530 “J” (4), No. 13-CV-0816
“J” (4), No. 07-CV-8678 “J” (4), No.
07-CV-5452 “J” (4), and No. 05-CV-6436
“J” (4). He has also unsuccessfully attempted to
challenge his conviction under 42 U.S.C. §1983 on a
number of occasions, being denied on the most recent attempt
the privilege of doing so at government expense based on the
“three-strike” provision codified in 28 U.S.C.
§1915(g). See No. 09-CV-3756 “N”
(1), No. 04-CV-1615 “K” (2), and No. 02-CV-2299
“J” (2). Indeed, in the oldest of those three
§1983 proceedings, No. 02-CV-2299, Plaintiff sued the
same six ostensible Defendants/Respondents that are named
herein based on alleged improprieties in his state court
 Harrison attaches to his
complaint a copy of a letter that was sent to him from the
Louisiana Judiciary Commission in the summer of 2001 advising
him that the complaint under No. 00-1875 had been closed as
allowed by Rule XXIII, Section 3(c) of the Rules of the
Louisiana Supreme Court. (Rec. doc. 1, p. 6). The Court notes
that a petition for writ of certiorari that Harrison
subsequently filed with respect to the judicial misconduct
complaint (rec. doc. 1, p. 4) was denied by the Louisiana
Supreme Court on September 15, 2017. In re: Judiciary
Commission No. 00-1875, 225 So.3d 459 (La.
 See No. 06-CV-3287
“B” (2), No. 05-CV-0039 “J” (2), and
No. 02-CV-2705 “B” (1).
The Court notes that in passing
upon Harrison's most recent motion for authorization to
file a successive habeas application, the Fifth Circuit
issued a stern sanction warning in light of his numerous
prior motions seeking such authorization. In re: