United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Alexandria Division
KAUNDA L. MAGEE (#331818), Plaintiff
CONCORDIA PARISH CORRECTIONAL, ET AL., Defendants
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
H.L. PEREZ-MONTES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
the Court is the civil rights complaint (42 U.S.C. §
1983) of pro se Plaintiff Kaunda L. Magee
(“Magee”) (#331818). Magee was granted leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 10). Magee is an
inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of
Corrections, incarcerated at the Louisiana State Penitentiary
in Angola, Louisiana. Magee complains that his constitutional
rights were violated when he was a pre-trial detainee at the
Washington Parish Jail.
Magee's conviction has not been reversed, expunged,
declared invalid, or called into question by a federal
court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, his §
1983 complaint is barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512
U.S. 477 (1994).
was transferred from the Concordia Parish Correctional
Facility (“CPCF”) to the Washington Parish Jail
(“WPJ”) on February 1, 2016, to be tried on
numerous criminal charges. Magee was administered his
prescribed medications at CPCF prior to his transfer. (Doc.
7, p. 4). However, Magee alleges that his medication was not
sent with him to Washington Parish. (Doc. 7, p. 4). On
February 2, 2016, Magee asked the WPJ staff about his
medication, and they advised they were “working on
getting it” from CPCF. Magee alleges that he did not
have his medication for the five days of trial.
was convicted on all 10 counts of the indictment, and
sentenced as a habitual offender to numerous life sentences.
See State v. Magee, 2016-1074 (La.App. 1 Cir.
4/12/17), writ denied, 2017-1003 (La. 2/23/18), 237
So.3d 514. Magee claims that, had he received his medication,
he would have been able to defend himself at trial. As
relief, Magee asks that the Court bring him justice and treat
him fairly. (Doc. 7, p. 5).
Law and Analysis
Magee's complaint is subject to screening under
§§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A.
is a prisoner who has been allowed to proceed in forma
pauperis. (Doc. 13). As a prisoner seeking redress from
an officer or employee of a governmental entity, Magee's
complaint is subject to preliminary screening pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A. 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) (holding that prison management corporations and their
employees are state actors under § 1983). Because he is
proceeding in forma pauperis, Magee's 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.
complaint is frivolous when it “lacks an arguable basis
either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A claim lacks an
arguable basis in law when it is “based on an
indisputably meritless legal theory.” Id. at
327. A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted when it fails to plead “enough facts to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009).
To the extent Magee seeks relief under § 1983, his
complaint is barred by Heck.
claim that his conviction is invalid because he was deprived
various mental health medications during his trial is barred
by Heck. In Heck, the Supreme Court held
that a claim that, in effect, attacks the constitutionality
of a conviction or imprisonment does not accrue until that
conviction or sentence has been “reversed on direct
appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a
state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or
called into question by a federal court's issuance of a
writ of habeas corpus.” Heck, 512 U.S. at
486-87; Wells v. Bonner, 45 F.3d 90, 94 (5th Cir.
1995). Magee's conviction has not been expunged,
reversed, or otherwise invalidated. See Magee, 237
So.3d 514. Thus, under Heck, Magee's claim must
be dismissed. See Reger v. Walker, 312 Fed.Appx.
624, 625 (5th Cir. 2009) (prisoner's claims, whether for
damages, declaratory judgment, or injunctive relief, are
subject to Heck if they imply the invalidity of
conviction); Clarke v. Stadler, 154 F.3d 186, 190-91
(5th Cir. 1998) (en banc) (holding that a claim for
prospective injunctive relief that would imply the invalidity
of a ...