United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
take notice that the attached Magistrate Judge's Report
has been filed with the Clerk of the United States District
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), you have fourteen
(14) days after being served with the attached Report to file
written objections to the proposed findings of fact,
conclusions of law and recommendations therein. Failure to
file written objections to the proposed findings,
conclusions, and recommendations within 14 days after being
served will bar you, except upon grounds of plain error, from
attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual
findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge which
have been accepted by the District Court.
NO EXTENSION OF TIME SHALL BE GRANTED TO FILE WRITTEN
OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT.
JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
pro se plaintiff, an inmate confined at the
Louisiana State Penitentiary, Angola, Louisiana, filed this
proceeding pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against unnamed
defendants, referenced as “the states”, seeking
to assert constitutional violations suffered by his
ancestor's during the Civil War.
to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A, this Court is
authorized to dismiss an action or claim brought by a
prisoner who is proceeding in forma pauperis or is
asserting a claim against a governmental entity or an officer
or employee of a governmental entity if satisfied that the
action or claim is frivolous, malicious or fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted. An action or claim is
properly dismissed as frivolous if the claim lacks an
arguable basis either in fact or in law. Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992), citing Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Hicks v.
Garner, 69 F.3d 22, 24-25 (5th Cir. 1995).
is factually frivolous if the alleged facts are
“clearly baseless, a category encompassing allegations
that are ‘fanciful,' ‘fantastic,' and
‘delusional.'” Id. at 32-33. A claim
has no arguable basis in law if it is based upon 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). The law accords judges not
only the authority to dismiss a claim which is based on an
indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual
power to pierce the veil of the factual allegations.
Denton v. Hernandez, supra, 504 U.S. at 32.
Pleaded facts which are merely improbable or strange,
however, are not frivolous for purposes of § 1915.
Id. at 33; Ancar v. Sara Plasma, Inc., 964
F.2d 465, 468 (5th Cir. 1992). A § 1915 dismissal may be
made any time, before or after service or process and before
or after an answer is filed, if the court determines that the
action “is frivolous or 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.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and
Green v. McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1116, 1999 (5th Cir.
Complaint, the plaintiff asserts that certain persons who
served in the Civil War should be compensated through their
offspring for their loss of income and good name, and seeks a
temporary restraining order against the Internal Revenue
Service mandating that it prove its jurisdiction over
individuals who served in the Civil War.
this Court can consider the merits of a legal claim, the
person seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of the court must
establish the requisite standing to sue. The Supreme Court
has articulated the constitutional requirements for standing
as follows: (1) the plaintiff must have suffered an
“injury in fact, ” (i.e ., a “concrete and
particularized” invasion of a “legally protected
interest”); (2) causation (i.e., a “fairly ...
trace[able]” connection between the alleged injury in
fact and the alleged conduct of the defendant); and (3)
redressability (i.e., it is likely and not merely speculative
that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision or
remedied by the relief plaintiff seeks in bringing suit.)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555,
instant matter, the plaintiff has not alleged that he himself
has suffered any injury, and any inferred harm is too
speculative to form the basis for a federal suit. Rather, it
appears that the plaintiff is seeking to be compensated for
harm suffered by his ancestors. Even if the plaintiff had
standing to bring suit, which he does not, the statute of
limitations arising out of any constitutional violations
suffered by his ancestors during the Civil War has long since
expired. As such, the plaintiff fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted.
extent that the plaintiff's allegations may be
interpreted as seeking to invoke the supplemental
jurisdiction of this court over potential state law claims, a
district court may decline the exercise of supplemental
jurisdiction if a plaintiff's state law claims raise
novel or complex issues of state law, if the claims
substantially predominate over the claims over which the
district court has original jurisdiction, if the district
court has dismissed all claims over which it had original
jurisdiction, or for other compelling reasons. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1367. In the instant case, having recommended that the
plaintiff's federal claims be dismissed, the Court
further recommends that the exercise of supplemental
jurisdiction be declined.
recommended that the Court decline the exercise of
supplemental jurisdiction over any potential state law
claims, and that this action be dismissed, with prejudice,
for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be ...