Gibson v. Kenneth

E.D. Louisiana

Gibson v. Kenneth

DecidedNovember 14, 2023

Docket2:23-cv-05401

StatusUnknown

This text of Gibson v. Kenneth (Gibson v. Kenneth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gibson v. Kenneth, (E.D. La. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

CLARENCE OTIS GIBSON CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 23-5401

BRANDON KENNETH SECTION “R” (5)

ORDER Plaintiff Clarence Gibson, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prosecutor Brandon Kenneth in connection with Gibson’s alleged wrongful criminal prosecution in Jefferson Parish. Gibson, an inmate at the Dixon Correctional Institute, complains about his 2008 indictment for aggravated rape that resulted in a jury conviction for sexual battery. He alleges that the illegal conviction resulted in a diagnosis of schizophrenia and damage to his reputation, and seeks $200,000,000 in compensatory damages.1 On October 30, 2023, Chief Magistrate Judge Michael B. North issued a Report & Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that the Court dismiss Gibson’s complaint with prejudice as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.2 Chief Magistrate Judge North

1 R. Doc. 4. 2 R. Doc. 7. specifically found that Gibson failed to meet the prerequisites for monetary relief established in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), and that the sole defendant in the case, Kenneth, is entitled to absolute immunity from the lawsuit for his actions or omissions taken in initiating and pursuing Gibson’s criminal prosecution. Gibson did not object to the R&R. Therefore, the Court reviews the R&R for clear error. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Assn, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note (1983) (“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”). The Court finds no clear

error. Accordingly, the Court adopts Chief Magistrate Judge North’s R&R as its opinion. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 14th day of November, 2023.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Id

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

CLARENCE OTIS GIBSON CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 23-5401

BRANDON KENNETH SECTION “R” (5)

ORDER Plaintiff Clarence Gibson, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prosecutor Brandon Kenneth in connection with Gibson’s alleged wrongful criminal prosecution in Jefferson Parish. Gibson, an inmate at the Dixon Correctional Institute, complains about his 2008 indictment for aggravated rape that resulted in a jury conviction for sexual battery. He alleges that the illegal conviction resulted in a diagnosis of schizophrenia and damage to his reputation, and seeks $200,000,000 in compensatory damages.1 On October 30, 2023, Chief Magistrate Judge Michael B. North issued a Report & Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that the Court dismiss Gibson’s complaint with prejudice as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.2 Chief Magistrate Judge North

1 R. Doc. 4. 2 R. Doc. 7. specifically found that Gibson failed to meet the prerequisites for monetary relief established in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), and that the sole defendant in the case, Kenneth, is entitled to absolute immunity from the lawsuit for his actions or omissions taken in initiating and pursuing Gibson’s criminal prosecution. Gibson did not object to the R&R. Therefore, the Court reviews the R&R for clear error. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Assn, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note (1983) (“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”). The Court finds no clear

error. Accordingly, the Court adopts Chief Magistrate Judge North’s R&R as its opinion. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 14th day of November, 2023.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Id

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Gibson v. Kenneth, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gibson-v-kenneth-laed-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack