United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lafayette Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
B. WHITEHURST, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
plaintiff Kenyatta Edmond, proceeding in forma pauperis,
filed the instant civil rights complaint on August 22, 2018.
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.
Statement of the Case
Kenyatta Edmond (“Edmond”) filed the instant suit
naming as defendants Lafayette Police Department, James
Peterson, Detective Boutte and the Detective Istre. In August
2016, plaintiff was picked up by Detectives Peterson and
Boutte of the Lafayette Police Department, questioned
regarding the murder of Donell Williams, and later released.
Two months later, in October 2016, she was arrested by
Detective Istre on the same allegations, held for
approximately 45 days, but never officially charged. She
complains that during the arrest and incarceration, her
mother had “guns drawn on her” and that she was
publically disgraced due to the fact that the false
allegations, her criminal background and photograph were
publicized on the news.
Law and Analysis
prisoner sues 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).
is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact.
Booker v. Koonce, 2 F.3d 114, 115 (5th Cir.1993);
see, Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992). 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, 157 F.3d 1022, 1025 (5th
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, 1120 (5th Cir.1986). District courts must construe in
forma pauperis complaints liberally, but they are 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).
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). 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 97.2.
brings suit against the Lafayette Police Department, James
Peterson, Detective Boutte and the Detective Istre. She
asserts that she was picked up for questioning in August
2016, released, subsequently arrested in October 2016, and
later released 45 days later, all in relation to the same
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, 471 U.S. 261, 279-280
(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 (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,
1027 (5th Cir. 1983). The “statute of limitations upon
a §1983 claim seeking damages for a false arrest in
violation of the Fourth Amendment, where the arrest is
followed by criminal proceedings, begins to run at the time
the claimant becomes detained pursuant to legal
process.” Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384
claim for false arrest and imprisonment claims thus accrued
in October 2016, when the judge in the criminal matter would
have reviewed the allegations set forth in the affidavit of
probable cause and determined that probable cause for
plaintiff's arrest and detention had been established.
See Villegas v. Galloway, 2012 WL 45417 (5th Cir.
2012)(unpublished) (“...false imprisonment ends when
the defendant is held pursuant to legal process, such as when
he is arraigned or bound over by a magistrate. Wallace v.
Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 389-90 (2007). 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). Plaintiff therefore had 1-year
from the date that the judge in the criminal matter made his
determination of probable cause, or until sometime in October
2017, to file her civil rights complaint claiming false
arrest. Plaintiff's complaint ...