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
Court has granted Plaintiff's Motions for Leave to
Proceed in Forma Pauperis. (R. Doc. 5). As Plaintiff is now
proceeding in forma pauperis (“IFP”), the
undersigned has performed a review, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e), to determine whether the complaint should be
dismissed as frivolous or malicious, or whether it fails to
state a claim on which relief may be granted.
Defendant Susan Griffin has filed a motion to dismiss. (R.
Doc. 16). The motion is opposed. (R. Docs. 20, 21).
Nature of the Plaintiff's Allegations
12, 2018, Harold Joe Black (“Plaintiff”)
commenced this civil rights action, which seeks relief under
28 U.S.C. § 1983, as a pro se plaintiff. (R.
Doc. 1). Plaintiff “ was previously convicted of
distribution of cocaine by a Louisiana state court and was
sentenced to 15 years imprisonment. His conviction and
sentence were affirmed on direct appeal, and his various
attempts to obtain postconviction relief were denied by
federal and state courts.” Black v. Griffin,
638 Fed.Appx. 371, 372 (5th Cir. 2016); see Black v.
Hornsby, No. 14-0822, 2014 WL 2535168, at *1 (W.D. La.
May 15, 2014) (detailing Plaintiff's conviction and
collateral attacks on his conviction), subsequently
aff'd sub nom. Black v. Hathaway, 616 Fed.Appx. 650
(5th Cir. 2015). Plaintiff alleges that he was released from
prison on May 30, 2013. (R. Doc. 1 at 2).
seeks the following relief in the instant action: “(a)
Compensated for Defendants deprivation, equal protection both
state's color of law La.C.Cr.P. art 881 and art 900; (b)
compensated denial good time release; compensated for held
under HFC penalty until May 29, 2013 illegally; (c)
compensated Deprived Educational 270 days of early release;
(d) compensated for being deprived, right to voter.”
(R. Doc. 1 at 8).
Plaintiff's allegations are difficult to decipher, the
claims against the defendants are limited to Plaintiff's
arrest, sentence, and incarceration. The referenced Louisiana
Code of Criminal Procedure articles respectively concern
credit for prior custody toward a sentence and the hearing
procedures for an arrest for violation of probation.
See La. C. Cr. P. arts 881, 900. Plaintiff also
appears to be seeking relief with respect to the validity of
his sentence with respect to his “habitual
offender” status as well as denial of early release
from prison. Finally, Plaintiff appears to seek compensation
with respect to the deprivation of his right to vote at the
time he was released from prison.
Law and Analysis
courts must construe IFP complaints filed by pro se
plaintiffs liberally. Nonetheless, even the most liberally
construed IFP complaint can be dismissed at any time,
regardless of service ...