Celestine v. 27th Judicial District Court

Fifth Circuit

Celestine v. 27th Judicial District Court

70 F. App'x 232

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided July 25, 2003·No. 02-30866·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM. *

Bobby Celestine appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his complaint for declaratory relief. Celestine seeks a declaratory judgment that his 1964 Louisiana state court conviction for simple burglary was unconstitutional.

A state may waive its defense of sovereign immunity, Wis. Dep’t of Corr. v. Schacht, 524 U.S. 381, 389, 118 S.Ct. 2047, 141 L.Ed.2d 364 (1998), but the 27th Judicial District Court did not do so. Celestine’s complaint against the 27th Judicial District Court does not fall within the exception created by Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 159-60, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. *233 714 (1908). See Aguilar v. Tex. Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 160 F.3d 1052, 1054 (5th Cir.1998).

Celestine may not obtain a declaratory judgment invalidating his burglary conviction. Johnson v. Onion, 761 F.2d 224, 226 (5th Cir.1985). Furthermore, he has failed to state a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Celestine’s complaint falls within the purview of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), even though his sentence has expired and he is not seeking damages. See Randell v. Johnson, 227 F.3d 300, 301 (5th Cir.2000); Clarke v. Stalder, 154 F.3d 186, 189 (5th Cir.1998). Celestine’s proposed amendment to name the state judge who handled his conviction as a defendant is baseless because the judge is protected by absolute immunity. See Malina v. Gonzales, 994 F.2d 1121, 1124-25 (5th Cir.1993).

AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM. *

Bobby Celestine appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his complaint for declaratory relief. Celestine seeks a declaratory judgment that his 1964 Louisiana state court conviction for simple burglary was unconstitutional.

A state may waive its defense of sovereign immunity, Wis. Dep’t of Corr. v. Schacht, 524 U.S. 381, 389, 118 S.Ct. 2047, 141 L.Ed.2d 364 (1998), but the 27th Judicial District Court did not do so. Celestine’s complaint against the 27th Judicial District Court does not fall within the exception created by Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 159-60, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. *233 714 (1908). See Aguilar v. Tex. Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 160 F.3d 1052, 1054 (5th Cir.1998).

Celestine may not obtain a declaratory judgment invalidating his burglary conviction. Johnson v. Onion, 761 F.2d 224, 226 (5th Cir.1985). Furthermore, he has failed to state a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Celestine’s complaint falls within the purview of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), even though his sentence has expired and he is not seeking damages. See Randell v. Johnson, 227 F.3d 300, 301 (5th Cir.2000); Clarke v. Stalder, 154 F.3d 186, 189 (5th Cir.1998). Celestine’s proposed amendment to name the state judge who handled his conviction as a defendant is baseless because the judge is protected by absolute immunity. See Malina v. Gonzales, 994 F.2d 1121, 1124-25 (5th Cir.1993).

AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Celestine v. 27th Judicial District Court, 70 F. App'x 232 (5th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

70 F. App'x 232 (Celestine v. 27th Judicial District Court) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related