Vassar El v. Plumer et al, No. 2:2018cv00946 - Document 18 (E.D. La. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS - For the reasons herein, the Court APPROVES the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations and ADOPTS it as its opinion in this matter. IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner Dexter Lewis Vassar El's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 com plaint against Benedict J. Willard, Commissioner Albert A. Thibodeaux, Assistant District Attorney Darrius Greene, and Public Defender Tina Peng is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 c laims against Agent Adam Plumer, Commander Doug Elliot, Deputy Rice, Deputy Marcia Wills Watson, and Deputy Lawrence Jones be and hereby are STAYED pending the outcome of Plaintiff's criminal proceedings in state court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED tha t the Court retain jurisdiction over the stayed claims and that the case be restored to the trial docket upon Plaintiff's motion once his criminal proceedings are concluded, so that the claims may proceed to final disposition. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Vassar El v. Plumer et al Doc. 18 U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT COU RT EASTERN D ISTRICT OF LOU ISIAN A D EXTER LEW IS VASSAR EL, Plain tiff CIVIL ACTION VERSU S N O. 18 -9 4 6 AD AM PLU MER, ET AL., D e fe n d an ts SECTION : “E”( 3 ) ORD ER AN D REAS ON S Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate J udge Daniel E. Knowles III recom mending that Dexter Vassar El’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Benedict J . Willard, Commissioner Albert A. Thibodeaux, Assistant District Attorney Darrius Greene, and Public Defender Tina Peng be dismissed with prejudice. 1 J udge Knowles further recomm ended that Plaintiff’s claims against Agent Adam Plumer, Comm ander Doug Elliot, Deputy Rice, Deputy Marcia Wills Watson, and Deputy Lawrence J ones be stayed pending the outcom e of Plaintiff’s state court proceedings. 2 Plaintiff timely objected to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recomm endation. 3 For the reasons that follow, the Court adopts the Report and Recomm endation as its own, and hereby DISMISSES Plaintiff’s claim s against Defendants Willard, Thibodeaux, Greene, and Peng and STAYS Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Plumer, Elliot, Rice, Watson, and J ones. BACKGROU N D On March 26, 20 18 , Plaintiff filed a com plaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants challenging the constitutionality of his arrest and related crim in al 1 R. Doc. 8. Id. 3 R. Docs. 9– 17. 2 1 Dockets.Justia.com proceedings. 4 As relief, he requests $ 10 0 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 . 5 On May 10 , 20 18 , Magistrate J udge Knowles issued his Report and Recom m endation. 6 On May 21, 20 18, Plaintiff tim ely filed his objections. 7 AN ALYSIS In reviewing the m agistrate judge’s Report and Recom m endation, the Court m ust conduct a de novo review of any of the m agistrate judge’s conclusions to which a party has specifically objected. 8 As to the portions of the report that are not objected to, the Court needs only to review those portions to determ ine whether they are clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 9 In his objections to Magistrate J udge Knowles’ Report and Recom m endation, Plaintiff asserts that the inadequacy of his claim is the result of his inability to access legal resources, nam ely Black’s Law Dictionary, “due to duress of im prisonm ent.”10 However, a prisoner’s constitutional right to counsel does not guarantee him access to a law library. 11 In this case, Plaintiff was appointed counsel, whom he later dism issed. 12 This appointm ent satisfied Plaintiff’s constitutional right, and officials are not further obligated to provide Plaintiff with legal research m aterials. 13 Plaintiff also objects to the m agistrate judge’s finding that Defendants Willard, Thibodeaux, Greene, and Peng are im m une from suit, claim ing that he is “a Free and 4 R. Doc. 5. Id. 6 R. Doc. 8. 7 R. Doc. 9. 8 See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“[A] judge of the court shall m ake a de novo determ ination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findin gs or recom m en dations to which an objection is m ade.”). 9 Id. 10 R. Doc. 9 at 1. 11 Degrate v. Godw in , 84 F.3d 768 (5th Cir. 1996). 12 R. Doc. 8 at 12. 13 Degrate, 84 F.3d at 768 . 5 2 Sovereign Moorish Am erican National” and, therefore, these Defendants are not protected from his suit. 14 Such a claim has no legal validity and m ust be dism issed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 15 As a result, the Court will dism iss Plaintiff’s claim s against Defendants Willard, Thibodeaux, Greene, and Peng. With respect to the rem aining Defendants—Plum er, Elliot, Deputy Rice, Watson, and J ones—Plaintiff, who is a pre-trial detainee, 16 challenges the legality of his arrest. Although a plaintiff is not barred from bringing a federal civil rights claim while awaiting trial on a crim inal charge, 17 if a plaintiff files a claim related to any rulings that will likely be m ade in a pending crim inal trial, then it is within the power of the district court and in accordance with com m on practice to stay the civil action until the crim in al case is resolved. 18 In this case, because plaintiff’s civil rights claim s concern his pen ding crim in al trial and the constitutionality of his arrest will likely be addressed by the state court, this Court will stay Plaintiff’s federal civil rights claim s against Plum er, Elliot, Deputy Rice, Watson, and J ones until Plaintiff’s state crim inal proceedings conclude. CON CLU SION For the reasons above, the Court APPROVES the Magistrate J udge’s Report and Recom m en dations and AD OPTS it as its opinion in this m atter. 19 14 R. Doc. 9 at 1. The court shall dism iss in form a pauperis proceedings where “(B) the action or appeal – (i) is frivolous.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915. See, e.g., United States v. Schneider, 910 F.2d 1569, 1570 (7th Cir. 1990 ) (holdin g the sovereign citizen defense has no validity in Am erican law); Mason v. Anderson , No. H-15-2952, 20 16 WL 4398680 , at *2 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 18, 20 16) (“[T]here is no constitutional support for the sovereign citizen claim s”); Berm an v. Stephens, No. 4:14-CV-860 -A., 20 15 WL 3622694, at *2 (N.D. Tex. J une 10 , 20 15) (holding that reliance on “sovereign citizen” theory is frivolous). 16 R. Doc. 8. 17 W allace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393 (20 0 7). 18 Id. at 393-94. Kato, relyin g on another Suprem e Court case, Heck v . Hum phrey , further notes that if a plaintiff is ultim ately convicted and the stayed civil suit would im pugn that conviction, then the civil suit m ust be dism issed. Kato, 549 U.S. at 394 (citin g Heck v. Hum phrey , 512 U.S. 477 (1994)). 19 R. Doc. 8. 15 3 IT IS ORD ERED that Petitioner Dexter Lewis Vassar El’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 com plaint against Ben edict J . Willard, Com m issioner Albert A. Thibodeaux, Assistant District Attorney Darrius Greene, and Public Defender Tina Peng is hereby D ISMISSED W ITH PREJU D ICE. 20 IT IS FU RTH ER ORD ERED that Petitioner’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim s again st Agent Adam Plum er, Com m ander Doug Elliot, Deputy Rice, Deputy Marcia Wills Watson, and Deputy Lawrence J ones be and hereby are STAYED pen ding the outcom e of Plaintiff’s crim inal proceedings in state court. IT IS FU RTH ER ORD ERED that the Court retain jurisdiction over the stayed claim s and that the case be restored to the trial docket upon Plaintiff’s m otion once his crim in al proceedings are concluded, so that the claim s m ay proceed to final disposition. N e w Orle an s , Lo u is ian a, th is 10 th d ay o f Au gu s t, 2 0 18 . _____________ ________ _________ SU SIE MORGAN U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT J U D GE 20 R. Doc. 5. 4
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
