United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Alexandria Division
DEE D. DRELL
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
H.L. PEREZ-MONTES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
the Court is a civil rights Complaint under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 filed by pro se Plaintiff Dereck Taylor Jr.
(“Taylor”) (#594882). (Docs. 1, 5). Taylor is a
pretrial detainee, currently housed at the Rapides Parish
Detention Center in Alexandria, Louisiana. He names as
Defendants Judge Mary Doggett, Correctional Officer J.
Morrow, and Correctional Officer B. Neal. (Doc. 5, p. 3).
Taylor challenges the criminal charges pending against him in
the Ninth Judicial District Court, Rapides Parish. Taylor
seeks compensatory damages as well as the dismissal of the
Judge Doggett is immune from suit; the dismissal of charges
cannot be obtained in a civil rights action; and Taylor
presents no claims against Defendants Morrow and Neal, the
Complaint (Docs. 1, 5) should be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH
alleges that he was arrested and charged with attempted
second-degree murder. (Doc. 1-2, p. 7). According to
information provided to the Court in a prior lawsuit, Taylor
filed a motion to dismiss his criminal case for lack of
jurisdiction, which Judge Doggett denied. (1:17-cv-999, Doc.
1, p. 5). Judge Doggett determined that Taylor needed an
attorney and could not represent himself in the criminal
proceeding. (1:17-cv-999, Doc. 1, p. 5). Taylor also
previously alleged that Judge Doggett sent him to the Eastern
Louisiana Mental Health System “to be competent
again.” (1:17-cv-999, Doc. 1, p. 5).
is now incarcerated at the Rapides Parish Detention Center.
Taylor claims that Judge Doggett failed to adequately inform
him of the charges against him and denied his motions to
dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. 1, p. 1; Doc. 5, p.
also lists as Defendants Correctional Officers Morrow and
Neal (Doc. 5, p. 3), but he does not provide any allegations
involving those Defendants.
Law and Analysis
Taylor's Complaint is subject to screening under
§§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A.
is an inmate 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, Taylor'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). Because he is
proceeding in forma pauperis, Taylor'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
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).
Judge Doggett is entitled to immunity.
claims that Judge Doggett failed to adequately inform him of
the charges against him and improperly denied his motions to
dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. 5, p. 3).
“Judicial officers are entitled to absolute immunity
from claims for damages arising out of acts performed in the
exercise of their judicial functions.” Boyd v.
Biggers, 31 F.3d 279, 284 (5th Cir. 1994). “A
judge is absolutely immune from liability for his judicial
acts even if his exercise of authority is flawed by the
commission of grave procedural errors.” Stump v.
Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 359 (1978). “[J]udicial
immunity is an immunity from suit, not just from ultimate
assessment of ...