Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

St Julien v. Government of Iberia Parish

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lafayette Division

September 25, 2018

RONALD JAMES ST JULIEN #612311
v.
GOVERNMENT OF IBERIA PARISH

         SEC P

          JAMES, JUDGE

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          CAROL B. WHITEHURST, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Pro se plaintiff Ronald James St. Julien, proceeding in forma pauperis, filed the instant civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 on January 23, 2018. [Rec. Doc. 1] His Complaint was stricken from the record on April 4, 2018, due to his failure to pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis. [Rec. Doc. 6] That order was vacated on July 3, 2018, and Plaintiff was give thirty (30) days to comply with the Court's order. [Rec. Doc. 11] On July 11, 2018, plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint [Rec. Doc. 12] and Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis [Rec. Doc. 13], which was granted on July 13, 2018 [Rec. Doc. 15].

         At the time of the filing of this suit, Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Iberia Parish Jail in New Iberia, Louisiana. He complains that “tainted police officers employed by the Parish of New Iberia LA were used to convict” him in November 2013. He names only the Iberia Parish Government as a defendant and seeks monetary damages, as well as “full relief of conviction.” [Rec. Doc. 12, p. 4] This complaint 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.

         I. Background

         Plaintiff contends that in November 2013, “tainted” police officers, employed by the Parish of New Iberia, submitted evidence and statements to Judge Keith Comeaux, in the Sixteenth Judicial District, that lead to his conviction. In 2016, these officers were convicted of federal crimes. Based on the officers' convictions, plaintiff contends that his civil rights were violated. Moreover, he argues that he was never advised by the Court or by his public defender of his right to post conviction relief.

         II. Law and Analysis

         A. Screening

         When a prisoner is allowed to litigate a civil rights complaint in forma pauperis, the district court should dismiss the case if at any time it determines that the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (stating that when a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or one of its employees, the court shall review the complaint as soon as practicable and dismiss it if the court finds the complaint frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief); 42 U.S.C.A. § 1997e(c) (providing that a district court shall on its own motion or the motion of any party dismiss a complaint by a prisoner regarding prison conditions if the court is satisfied the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from an immune defendant).

         A claim is frivolous if it has no arguable basis in law or fact. Nietzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). A claim has no 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 v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1003, 1005 (5th Cir.1998) (quotation omitted). A claim has no arguable basis in fact if “after providing the plaintiff the opportunity to present additional facts when necessary, the facts alleged are clearly baseless.” Talib v. Gilley, 138 F.3d 211, 213 (5th Cir.1998).

         While district courts are required to construe in forma pauperis complaints liberally, particularly in the context of dismissals under § 1915(e)(2)(B), they are, nonetheless, given broad discretion in determining when such complaints are frivolous. Macias v. Raul A. (Unknown) Badge No. 153, 23 F.3d 94, 97 (5th Cir.1994). A complaint may not be dismissed under § 1915(d)(2)(B) “simply because the court finds the plaintiff's allegations unlikely.” Jolly v. Klein, 923 F.Supp. 931, 942-43 (S.D.Tex.1996). Nevertheless, a civil rights plaintiff must support his claims with specific facts demonstrating a constitutional deprivation and may not simply rely on conclusory allegations. Schultea v. Wood, 47 F.3d 1427, 1433 (5th Cir.1995); see Wesson v. Ogleby, 910 F.2d 278, 281 (5th Cir.1990) (“An IFP complaint that recites bare legal conclusions, with no suggestion of supporting facts, or that postulates facts of an entirely fanciful nature, is a prime candidate for dismissal under [§ 1915(d)(2)(B) ].”). The 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.

         B. Limitations

         The district court is authorized to dismiss a claim as frivolous if “it is clear from the face of a complaint filed in forma pauperis that the claims asserted are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.” Moore v. McDonald, 30 F.3d 616, 620 (5th Cir. 1994); Gartrell v. Gaylor, 981 F.2d 254, 256 (5th Cir. 1993). A district ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.