United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lafayette Division
A. DOUGHTY JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
B. WHITEHURST UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
se plaintiff Patrick Guillory, proceeding in forma
pauperis, filed the instant civil rights complaint on
September 4, 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.
of the Case
Plaintiff complains that at the age of 17, he was
“forced into the life of an informant for the Crowley
P.D.” [Rec. Doc. 1, p. 3] He alleges that although he
was diagnosed with a mental illness, he was forced to work
for the police, that his life has been in danger, that he was
beaten in jail and suffered mistreatment due to his status as
a known informant. He names as defendants Judge Kristian
Earles (erroneously named as “Kristen Earls”),
Assistant District Attorney Roger Hamilton, private attorney
Jack E. Nickel, Crowley Police Department and Louisiana State
Police. He seeks $25, 000, 000.00 in damages and asks this
Court to “take away” his conviction.
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).
is frivolous if it has no arguable basis in law or fact.
Nietzke v. Williams, 19');">490 U.S. 319, 109 S.Ct. 1827');">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');">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).
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, 10 F.2d 278');">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.
Civil Rights Claims
Judge Kristian Earles
claims against 15th Judicial District Court Judge
Kristian Earles arise out of the performance of his judicial
duties. Judges have absolute immunity for acts done within
the scope of their jurisdiction. Stump v. Sparkman,
435 U.S. 349, 356 (1978). The Fifth Circuit has delineated
three elements to identify acts as being judicial in nature,
and thus not in the clear absence of all jurisdiction:
“(1) normal judicial functions that (2) occurred in the
judge's court or chambers and were (3) centered around a
case pending before the judge.” Eitel v.
Holland, 787 F.2d 995, 998 (5th Cir.1986). These factors
are construed liberally in favor of immunity. Adams v.
McIlhany, 764 F.2d 294, 297 (5th Cir.1985). As
plaintiff's allegations center around normal judicial
functions that occurred in Judge Earles' courtroom
related to plaintiff's criminal matter pending before
him, all claims against Judge Earles should be dismissed.
Assistant District ...