UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ANTHONY D. FARRIER CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 20-1611 STATE OF LOUISIANA, et al. SECTION: “G”(3)
ORDER AND REASONS Before the Court are Plaintiff Anthony D. Farrier’s (“Plaintiff”) objections to the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge assigned to the case.1 Plaintiff, a Louisiana state prisoner, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Orleans Parish District Attorney Leon Cannizzaro, Orleans Parish Criminal District Court Judge Robin Pittman, Louisiana State Penitentiary Warden Darrel Vannoy, and the Louisiana Supreme Court.2 Plaintiff alleges that under Ramos v. Louisiana his constitutional rights were violated when he was convicted by a non-unanimous jury.3 The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Section 1983 clams pursuant to the Supreme Court’s holding in Heck v. Humphery because a judgment in Plaintiff’s favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of Plaintiff’s conviction.4 Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation.5 Considering the Complaint, the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff’s objections, the record, and the applicable
1 Rec. Doc. 7. 2 Rec. Doc. 3. 3 Id. (citing Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S.Ct. 1390 (2020)). 4 Rec. Doc. 6. 5 Rec. Doc. 7. law, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s objections, adopts the Report and Recommendation, and dismisses Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice until such time as the Heck conditions are met. I. Background On June 22, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint in this Court alleging his conviction by a non- unanimous jury violated his constitutional right under the Fourteenth Amendment.6 Plaintiff brings
claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Orleans Parish District Attorney Leon Cannizzaro, Orleans Parish Criminal District Court Judge Robin Pittman, Louisiana State Penitentiary Warden Darrel Vannoy, and the Louisiana Supreme Court.7 Plaintiff seeks damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief.8 The Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims be dismissed pursuant to the Supreme Court’s holding in Heck v. Humphrey.9 Under Heck, a plaintiff may not recover under Section 1983 unless his conviction is “reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.10 Because Plaintiff
has not demonstrated that his conviction has already been invalidated, Heck would bar his claims for damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief.11 Therefore, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims with prejudice until such time
6 Rec. Doc. 3. 7 Id. 8 Id. at 18. 9 Rec. Doc. 6 at 4 (citing Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994)). 10 Id. (citing Heck, 512 U.S. at 486–87). 11 Id. at 5. as the Heck conditions are met.12 To the extent the Complaint could be construed as a federal habeas corpus petition seeking relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the Magistrate Judge noted that Plaintiff has already sought federal habeas relief and he must obtain authorization for a successive filing from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit before filing a successive habeas petition.13
Plaintiff objects to the Report and Recommendation.14 Plaintiff’s requested that this Court “stay all decisions and actions” until Plaintiff receives a de novo review of his conviction “in light of the recent ruling of . . . Ramos v. Louisiana.”15 Thereafter, Plaintiff filed four amended pleadings reasserting his claim that his constitutional rights were violated when he was convicted by a non- unanimous jury.16 Plaintiff reasserts his requests for damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief.17 II. Standard of Review A. Review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation When designated by a district court to do so, a United States Magistrate Judge may consider
prisoner petitions challenging the conditions of confinement and recommend his/her disposition to the district court judge in accordance with the Magistrate Judge’s findings of fact and determinations of law.18 A district judge “may accept, reject or modify the recommended
12 Id. at 5. 13 Id. 14 Rec. Doc. 7. 15 Id. (citation omitted). 16 Rec. Docs. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. 17 Id. 18 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B). disposition” of a Magistrate Judge on a dispositive matter.19 The district judge must “determine de novo any part of the [Report and Recommendation] that has been properly objected to.”20 However, a district court’s review is limited to plain error of parts of the report not properly objected to.21
B. Standard for Frivolousness A district court has broad discretion in determining the frivolous nature of a prisoner’s complaint.22 A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact.23 A claim has no arguable basis in law if “it is based on indisputable meritless legal theory.”24 It lacks a basis in facts if “the facts alleged are clearly baseless.”25 If a court finds a prisoner’s claims are frivolous, the court must dismiss the claims sua sponte.26 III. Law and Analysis Plaintiff’s objects to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that this Court dismiss his Section 1983 claims under the Heck doctrine.27 Plaintiff requests this Court “stay all decisions and actions” until Plaintiff’s conviction is reviewed de novo.28
In Heck v. Humphrey, the Supreme Court held:
19 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1). 20 Fed. R. civ. P. 72(b)(3). 21 See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428–29 (5th Cir. 1996). 22 See Talib v. Gilley, 138 F.3d 211, 213 (5th Cir. 1998) (citations omitted). 23 Id. 24 Id. 25 Id. 26 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; 42 U.S.C. §1997e(c). 27 Rec Doc. 7. 28 Id. [I]n order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm cause by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. §2254, claim for damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ANTHONY D. FARRIER CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 20-1611 STATE OF LOUISIANA, et al. SECTION: “G”(3)
ORDER AND REASONS Before the Court are Plaintiff Anthony D. Farrier’s (“Plaintiff”) objections to the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge assigned to the case.1 Plaintiff, a Louisiana state prisoner, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Orleans Parish District Attorney Leon Cannizzaro, Orleans Parish Criminal District Court Judge Robin Pittman, Louisiana State Penitentiary Warden Darrel Vannoy, and the Louisiana Supreme Court.2 Plaintiff alleges that under Ramos v. Louisiana his constitutional rights were violated when he was convicted by a non-unanimous jury.3 The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Section 1983 clams pursuant to the Supreme Court’s holding in Heck v. Humphery because a judgment in Plaintiff’s favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of Plaintiff’s conviction.4 Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation.5 Considering the Complaint, the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff’s objections, the record, and the applicable
1 Rec. Doc. 7. 2 Rec. Doc. 3. 3 Id. (citing Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S.Ct. 1390 (2020)). 4 Rec. Doc. 6. 5 Rec. Doc. 7. law, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s objections, adopts the Report and Recommendation, and dismisses Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice until such time as the Heck conditions are met. I. Background On June 22, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint in this Court alleging his conviction by a non- unanimous jury violated his constitutional right under the Fourteenth Amendment.6 Plaintiff brings
claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Orleans Parish District Attorney Leon Cannizzaro, Orleans Parish Criminal District Court Judge Robin Pittman, Louisiana State Penitentiary Warden Darrel Vannoy, and the Louisiana Supreme Court.7 Plaintiff seeks damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief.8 The Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims be dismissed pursuant to the Supreme Court’s holding in Heck v. Humphrey.9 Under Heck, a plaintiff may not recover under Section 1983 unless his conviction is “reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.10 Because Plaintiff
has not demonstrated that his conviction has already been invalidated, Heck would bar his claims for damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief.11 Therefore, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims with prejudice until such time
6 Rec. Doc. 3. 7 Id. 8 Id. at 18. 9 Rec. Doc. 6 at 4 (citing Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994)). 10 Id. (citing Heck, 512 U.S. at 486–87). 11 Id. at 5. as the Heck conditions are met.12 To the extent the Complaint could be construed as a federal habeas corpus petition seeking relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the Magistrate Judge noted that Plaintiff has already sought federal habeas relief and he must obtain authorization for a successive filing from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit before filing a successive habeas petition.13
Plaintiff objects to the Report and Recommendation.14 Plaintiff’s requested that this Court “stay all decisions and actions” until Plaintiff receives a de novo review of his conviction “in light of the recent ruling of . . . Ramos v. Louisiana.”15 Thereafter, Plaintiff filed four amended pleadings reasserting his claim that his constitutional rights were violated when he was convicted by a non- unanimous jury.16 Plaintiff reasserts his requests for damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief.17 II. Standard of Review A. Review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation When designated by a district court to do so, a United States Magistrate Judge may consider
prisoner petitions challenging the conditions of confinement and recommend his/her disposition to the district court judge in accordance with the Magistrate Judge’s findings of fact and determinations of law.18 A district judge “may accept, reject or modify the recommended
12 Id. at 5. 13 Id. 14 Rec. Doc. 7. 15 Id. (citation omitted). 16 Rec. Docs. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. 17 Id. 18 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B). disposition” of a Magistrate Judge on a dispositive matter.19 The district judge must “determine de novo any part of the [Report and Recommendation] that has been properly objected to.”20 However, a district court’s review is limited to plain error of parts of the report not properly objected to.21
B. Standard for Frivolousness A district court has broad discretion in determining the frivolous nature of a prisoner’s complaint.22 A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact.23 A claim has no arguable basis in law if “it is based on indisputable meritless legal theory.”24 It lacks a basis in facts if “the facts alleged are clearly baseless.”25 If a court finds a prisoner’s claims are frivolous, the court must dismiss the claims sua sponte.26 III. Law and Analysis Plaintiff’s objects to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that this Court dismiss his Section 1983 claims under the Heck doctrine.27 Plaintiff requests this Court “stay all decisions and actions” until Plaintiff’s conviction is reviewed de novo.28
In Heck v. Humphrey, the Supreme Court held:
19 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1). 20 Fed. R. civ. P. 72(b)(3). 21 See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428–29 (5th Cir. 1996). 22 See Talib v. Gilley, 138 F.3d 211, 213 (5th Cir. 1998) (citations omitted). 23 Id. 24 Id. 25 Id. 26 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; 42 U.S.C. §1997e(c). 27 Rec Doc. 7. 28 Id. [I]n order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm cause by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. §2254, claim for damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983. Thus, when a state prisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the district court must consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence; if it would, the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated.29
Additionally, Heck has been extended to claims for declaratory and injunctive relief.30 If the judgment would imply the invalidity of the state court conviction the plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims should be dismissed with prejudice until such time as the Heck conditions are met.31 A judgment on Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim that his conviction by a non-unanimous jury was unconstitutional would necessarily imply the invalidity of his state court conviction. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim must be dismissed with prejudice until such time as the Heck conditions are met. It would be futile to construe the instant complaint in part as a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 because this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider such a petition. Plaintiff previously filed a Section 2254 petition challenging this same conviction that was dismissed with prejudice on the merits.32 This Court does not have jurisdiction to consider a second or successive
29 Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486–87 (1994). 30 Clark v. Stalder, 154 F.3d 186, 190–91 (5th Cir. 1998); Walton v. Parish of LaSalle, 258 F. App’x 633, 633–34 (5th Cir. 2007); Collins v. Ainsworth, 177 F. App’x 377, 379 (5th Cir. 2005). 31 See DeLeon v. City of Corpus Christi, 488 F.3d 649, 657 (5th Cir. 2007) (“A preferred order of dismissal in Heck cases decrees, ‘Plaintiff[’]s claims are dismissed with prejudice to their being asserted again until the Heck conditions are met.’”). 32 Farrier v. Vannoy, No. 17-7955, 2018 WL 6651253 (E.D. La. Dec. 19, 2018). habeas petition challenging that same state criminal judgment unless the petitioner has obtained authorization for such a filing from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.33 On October 19, 2020, the Fifth Circuit denied Petitioner’s request for authorization to file a successive Section 2254 petition based on his claim that he was convicted by a non-unanimous jury.34
Therefore, this Court does not have jurisdiction to consider a successive Section 2254 petition, and Plaintiff has not demonstrated that a stay of these proceedings is warranted while he seeks review of his conviction. In addition, the Supreme Court recently held that its decision in Ramos v. Louisiana, requiring that under the Sixth Amendment right to jury trial a state-court jury must be unanimous to convict a criminal defendant of a serious offense, does not apply retroactively on federal collateral review.35 IV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim that his conviction by a non- unanimous jury was unconstitutional would necessarily imply the invalidity of his state court conviction. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims must be dismissed with prejudice until such
time as the Heck conditions are met. Additionally, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that a stay of these proceedings is warranted while he seeks review of his conviction. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation.
33 See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). 34 See Farrier v. Vannoy, No. 20-30542 (5th Cir. Oct. 19, 2020). 35 Edwards v. Vannoy, ---- S.Ct. ----, 2021 WL 1951781 (May 17, 2021). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Section 1983 claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE until such time as the Heck conditions are met. NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this Ist day of June, 2021.
NANNETTE J ETTE BROWN CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT