Loiseau v. Lowery, No. 3:2014cv00615 - Document 12 (E.D. Va. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. See Opinion for details. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 03/27/2015. Copy sent Yes. (ccol, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Loiseau v. Lowery Doc. 12 TjTjF^ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MAR 2 7 2015 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division CLERK. U.a. district COURT RICHMn.Mn T/!^ MICHAEL LOISEAU, Plaintiff, V. Civil Action No. MATTHEW B. 3:14CV615 LOWERY, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Michael Loiseau, a Virginia civil action under 42 U.S.C. Court for evaluation inmate, § 1983.^ pursuant to 28 has submitted this The matter is before the U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A. A. Preliminary Review Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") this Court must dismiss any action filed by a prisoner if the Court determines a the action claim on § 1915(e)(2); which see (1) "is relief 28 U.S.C. frivolous" may § be 1915A. or (2) "fails granted." The 28 first to state U.S.C. standard ^ That statute provides, in pertinent part: Every person who, under color of any statute . . . of any State . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law . . . . 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dockets.Justia.com includes claims based upon ''^an indisputably meritless legal theory,'" or claims where the "'factual contentions are clearly baseless.'" 1992) The Clay v. Yates, (quoting Neitzke v. second standard dismiss under Fed. "A motion sufficiency contests of is R. a the P. Arthur R. 952 Miller, 427 319, standard under facts, (4th Cir. 490 U.S. Rule (E.D. 327 for a Va. (1989)). motion 12(b)(6) importantly, applicability of defenses." 980 F.2d 943, 417, to 12(b)(6). dismiss the Supp. familiar complaint; surrounding F. Williams^ Civ. to 809 the it merits does of a tests not the resolve claim, or the Republican Party of N.C. v. Martin^ 1992) (citing 5A Charles A. Wright & Federal Practice and Procedure § 1356 (1990)). In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a plaintiff's well-pleaded allegations are taken as true and the complaint is plaintiff. Cir. in Mylan Labs., 1993); applies viewed see only also to a Martin, identifying pleadings conclusions, Ashcroft V. The motion are Iqbal, Federal not most 980 dismiss that, 662, Civil favorable to at 952. however, choose they to the 679 are This the 1134 7 F.3d 1130, can because entitled of F.2d allegations, to 556 U.S. Rules light Inc. v. Matkari, factual considering the (4th principle and "a to begin no assumption court more than (2009). Procedure "require[ of by ] truth." only 'a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,' in order to 'give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'" Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, (second alteration in original) U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 Plaintiffs cannot satisfy this standard with complaints containing only "labels and conclusions" or a "formulaic Id. recitation of (citations omitted). sufficient level," "to id. "plausible raise a its "conceivable." Id. elements of a cause of action." Instead, a plaintiff must allege facts right (citation on the to relief omitted), face," id^ above stating at 570, the a speculative claim rather that than is merely "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference misconduct alleged." Corp., that Iqbal, 550 U.S. at 556). survive dismissal for the defendant 556 U.S. at 678 is liable for the (citing Bell Atl. In order for a claim or complaint to failure to state a claim, the plaintiff must "allege facts sufficient to state all the elements of [his or] her claim." Bass v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 324 F.3d 761, 765 (4th Cir. 2003) (citing Dickson v. Microsoft Corp., 309 F.3d 193, 213 (4th Cir. 2002); lodice v. United States, 289 F.3d 270, 281 (4th Cir. 2002)). construes pro se complaints, 1151 Lastly, while the Court liberally Gordon v. Leeke/ 574 F.2d 1147, (4th Cir. 1978), it will not act as the inmate's advocate and develop, that the inmate complaint. 1997) sua sponte, failed statutory and constitutional claims to clearly raise on the face of his See Brock v. Carroll, 107 F.3d 241, 243 (4th Cir. (Luttig, J., concurring); Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 B. (4th Cir. 1985). Summary of the Complaint Loiseau names Commonwealth Virginia." as the Attorney sole defendant, for the Matthew Lowery, County of "the Spotsylvania[,] (Compl. 2) Plaintiff asserts that during the course of his criminal trial, Lowery failed to disclose exculpatory DNA evidence as required by Brady v. Maryland, (Id. at 4.) (Id. 373 U.S. 83 (1963). at 6-7.) C. Loiseau demands declaratory and monetary relief. Analysis 1. Prosecutorial Immunity Prosecutorial immunity bars Loiseau's damages against Defendant Lowery. U.S. 409, 430 (1976). taken while advocate," See Imbler v. for monetary Pachtman, 424 Prosecutorial immunity extends to actions performing Kalina claims v. "the Fletcher, traditional 522 functions U.S. 118, of 131 an (1997) (citations omitted), as well as functions that are "intimately associated with judicial phase the Imbler, 424 U.S. at 430. falls within the ambit of the criminal process." To ascertain whether a specific action of protected conduct, courts employ a functional approach, distinguishing acts of advocacy administrative duties and investigative tasks unrelated from to an advocate's preparation for the initiation of a prosecution or for judicial proceedings." 259, 273 (1993) Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, (citation omitted); Carter v. 257, 261-63 (4th Cir. 1994). 509 U.S. Burch, 34 F. 3d Absolute immunity protects those "acts undertaken by a prosecutor in preparing for the initiation of judicial proceedings or for trial, and which occur in the course of his role as an advocate for the State." U.S. at Buckley, 509 273. Loiseau seeks to hold Defendant Lowery withholding allegedly exculpatory evidence. allege facts that suggest Defendant liable Loiseau fails Lowery's actions for to in Loiseau's criminal proceedings were actions taken outside of his role as an advocate for the Commonwealth. at 263 See Carter, 34 F. 3d (holding that a state prosecuting attorney is absolutely immune from liability for officers to present damages false testimony exculpatory evidence prior to trial). monetary damages against for conspiring with police and for withholding Thus, Loiseau's claim for Defendant Lowery is foreclosed, and will be dismissed. Nevertheless, "prosecutors are not immune from suit as to requests for declaratory or injunctive relief." Marsico, 340 F. App'x 778, 779 (3d Cir. 2009) Blakeney v. (citing Supreme Court of Va. v. Consumers Union of the U.S., 446 U.S. 719, 736 (1980); Jorden v. Nat'l Guard Bureau, 799 F.2d 99, 110 (3d Cir. 1986)). As explained below, Loiseau's request for declaratory relief is barred by Heck v. Humphrey and related cases. 2. Heck V. Humphrey The premise of Loiseau's claims, namely the notion that he may seek, through a civil suit, the vacation or alteration of his criminal convictions and sentence as well as monetary damages stemming from the purportedly improper incarceration, "is legally frivolous in light of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), and related cases." 2008 WL 1766665, at *2 In Heck, actions are the Virginia, Court appropriate emphasized vehicles that for validity of outstanding criminal judgments." 486. No. 3:07cv337, (E.D. Va. Apr. 17, 2008). Supreme "not Payne v. civil challenging tort the Heck, 512 U.S. at The Supreme Court then held that: [A] conviction § 1983 or plaintiff sentence has must been prove reversed that on the direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, § Heck, federal 28 U.S.C. 2254. 512 U.S. at 486-87 (internal footnote omitted) . The Supreme Court then required that "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." Id. at 487. In Edwards v. Balisok, the Supreme Court extended Heck to civil rights actions that do not directly challenge confinement, but instead contest procedures which necessarily imply unlawful confinement. 520 U.S. 641, 646 (1997). The Supreme Court has explained that Heck and its progeny teach that: [A] state prisoner's § 1983 action is barred (absent prior invalidation}—no matter the relief sought (damages or equitable relief), no matter the target of the prisoner's suit (state conduct leading to conviction success or in that internal action prison proceedings)—if would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration. Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-82 (2005). With the legal standard fully explicated, the first question this Court must examine is whether Loiseau's claims necessarily imply the invalidity of his sentence. U.S. at 487. Heck, 512 Loiseau contends that Defendant Lowery failed to disclose material exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady. Louiseau does not articulate, and the Court does not discern, how he could both prevail on such a claim and not simultaneously invalidate the fact of his confinement. 131 U.S. 1289, 1300 (2011). See Skinner v. Switzer, Because success on his claim necessarily implies invalid confinement, under the second prong of the Heck analysis, Loiseau must demonstrate a successful challenge to his current conviction. a Heck, 512 U.S. at 487. Loiseau presents no negation that the state court has invalidated his current convictions or sentence. Loiseau's claims for Id. at 486-87. declaratory and Thus, monetary Heck bars relief. Accordingly, the present action will be dismissed as legally frivolous. The Clerk will be directed to note the disposition of the action for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion to Loiseau. It is so Ordered. /s/ Robert E. Date: 7K.^C^ Richmond, Virginia ^^ Payne Senior United States District Judge
]]>
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.
