United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Monroe Division
A. DOUGHTY JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
L. HAYES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Greg Stevens, a prisoner at Franklin Parish Detention Center
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed the instant
proceeding on September 4, 201');">19, under 42 U.S.C. § 1');">1983.
He names District Attorney James E. Paxton as
Defendant.[1');">1" name="FN1');">1" id=
"FN1');">1">1');">1] For the following reasons, the Court
should dismiss Plaintiff9;s claims.
maintains that, on March 23, 1');">1999, his “constitutional
right to a speedy trial was violated[, ]” and that, on
November 1');">19, 1');">1999, “the Louisiana Supreme Court
confirmed the violation.” [doc. # 1');">1, p. 5]. Plaintiff
claims that the district attorney continued to prosecute him
even after his right to a speedy trial was violated.
Id. According to Plaintiff, “when the
prosecutor continued to prosecute me, he was acting outside
of his discretionary functions and prosecutorial duties, this
constitutes no immunity.” Id.
alleges further: “In sum and to clarify, I am not
disputing the prosecutions [sic] immunity for violating my
speedy trial right, even though it is not fair.”
Id. at 6. Rather, Plaintiff seeks relief because the
prosecutor continued to prosecute him after the alleged
speedy- trial violation. Id. He maintains that
“the only duty the prosecution had was to dismiss the
charges . . . .” Id. The prosecutor, Plaintiff
claims, “is without doubt responsible for depriving
[Plaintiff] of [his] constitutional right to liberty.”
Id. at 7. Plaintiff adds, “When the speedy
trial right violation was confirmed everything that occurred
‘after9; the speedy trial violation was illegal,
this is the sole argument of this complaint.”
seeks $7, 500, 000.00, and he asks the Court to dismiss his
charge with prejudice, to expunge the charge from his record,
and to declare the charge invalid. Id. at 8.
is a prisoner who has been permitted to proceed in forma
pauperis. As a prisoner seeking redress from an
officer or employee of a governmental entity, his complaint
is subject to preliminary screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1');">191');">15A. See Martin v. Scott, 1');">156 F.3d
578, 579-80 (5th Cir. 1');">1998) (per curiam). Because he
is proceeding in forma pauperis, his Complaint is also
subject to screening under § 1');">191');">15(e)(2). Both §
1');">191');">15(e)(2)(B) and § 1');">191');">15A(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 on which relief may be granted, or
if it seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from such relief.
complaint is frivolous when it “lacks an arguable basis
either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v.
Williams, 90 U.S. 31');">19');">490 U.S. 31');">19, 325 (1');">1989). A claim lacks an
arguable basis in law when it is “based on an
indisputably meritless legal theory.” Id. at
327. Courts are also afforded the unusual power to pierce the
veil of the factual allegations and dismiss those claims
whose factual contentions are clearly baseless. Id.
complaint fails to state a claim on 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); accord Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009). A claim is facially plausible when it contains
sufficient factual content for the court “to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678
(citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). Plausibility does
not equate to possibility or probability; it lies somewhere
in between. Id. Plausibility simply calls for enough
factual allegations to raise a reasonable expectation that
discovery will reveal evidence to support the elements of the
claim. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556.
whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief is a
“context-specific task that requires the reviewing
court to draw on its judicial experience and common
sense.” Iqbal, supra. A well-pled complaint
may proceed even if it strikes the court that actual proof ...