Doc v. Iberia City Police Dep't, CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:13-1376 SECTION P
| Decision Date | 26 June 2015 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:13-1376 SECTION P |
| Parties | TERRENCE BENOIT LA. DOC #489486 v. IBERIA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana |
Pro se plaintiff Terrence Benoit filed the instant civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 5, 2013. Benoit is an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections. He is presently incarcerated at the Elayn Hunt Correctional Center in St. Gabriel, Louisiana. Benoit is serving consecutive sentences totaling 116 years, imposed following his conviction for multiple counts of possession of child pornography, entered in the Sixteenth Judicial District Court for Iberia Parish, Louisiana. Benoit names the Iberia City Police Department, Sixteenth Judicial District Court Judge Wattigny and the Sixteenth Judicial District Court as defendants. He complains of defects in the affidavit supporting his arrest warrant, and that his property was illegally searched and seized following his arrest, thereby rendering his present confinement illegal. Accordingly, Benoit seeks release from incarceration.
This matter has been referred to the undersigned for review, report, and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the standing orders of the Court. For the following reasons it is recommended that Benoit's civilrights action be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failing to state a claim for which relief may be granted.
The procedural history underlying the present action has been detailed in Benoit's three prior federal habeas corpus actions filed in this Court. Terrence Benoit v. Burl Cain, Warden, Civil Action No. 6:07-cv-0039 and Benoit v. Louisiana State Penitentiary, Civil Action 6:09-cv-2094; and Benoit v. Warden, Elayn Hunt Correctional Center, Civil Action 6:12-cv-2856. In pertinent part, the procedural history is as follows.
On November 15, 2004, Benoit pled guilty to fifty-eight counts of pornography involving juveniles. On December 20, 2005, Benoit was sentenced to serve 2 years for each of the 58 counts, the sentences to run consecutively, for a total of 116 years imprisonment. Since entry of his plea, Benoit's efforts to attack his conviction and sentence in every level of the Louisiana state courts has been unsuccessful. See e.g. State ex rel. Benoit v. State, 2009-0486 (La. 12/11/2009), 23 So.3d 914; State v. Benoit, 2008-1252 (La. App. 3 Cir. 12/23/08), 2008 WL 5339639, 997 So.2d 906 (unpublished); State ex rel. Benoit v. State, 2006-2142 (La. 5/11/07), 955 So.2d 1275; State ex rel Benoit v. State, 2007-0258 (La. 5/11/07), 955 So.2d 1279; State ex rel. Benoit v. State, 2006-1553 (La. 3/23/07), 951 So.2d 1553.
On January 8, 2007, Benoit filed his first petition for federal habeas corpus relief in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254.1 Terrence Benoit v. Burl Cain, Warden, Civil Action No. 6:07-cv-0039. After extensive proceedings, the undersigned recommended dismissal of the petition with prejudice, having found that petitioner's claims for relief were procedurally defaulted, without merit or both. [Id. at rec. doc. 59]. After considering petitioner's objections to the Report and Recommendation, on December 3, 2009, Judge Haik dismissed the petition with prejudice. [Id. at rec. doc. 64]. On December 14, 2009, petitioner filed pro se pleadings which were construed as motions for an appeal and for a certificate of appealability. [Id. at rec docs. 65 and 66]. Petitioner's appeal was initially dismissed by the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for want of prosecution. [Id. at rec. doc. 72]. However, the Fifth Circuit granted petitioner's request to reopen the case. [Id. at 73]. On July 22, 2010, the Fifth Circuit denied Benoit's request for a certificate of appealability and affirmed this Court's Judgment. [Id. at rec. doc. 77; Benoit v. Cain, No. 09-31214 (5th Cir. 2010)].
On December 2, 2009, while his first habeas petition was still pending in this Court, Benoit filed a second petition for federal habeas corpus relief, attacking the same convictions and sentences. Benoit v. Louisiana State Penitentiary, Civil Action 6:09-cv-2094. This petition raised claims virtually identical to the claims for relief alleged in his first federal habeas petition, as well as several new claims not previously presented.2 On March 9, 2009, the undersigned recommended that the petition be dismissed without prejudice because the petition constituted a second and successive habeas petition within the meaning of 28 U .S.C. § 2244(b), filed without prior authorization of the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.3 [Id. at rec. doc. 7]. On April 1, 2009, Judge Haikadopted the undersigned's Recommendation and dismissed the petition. [Id. at rec. doc. 8].
On November 7, 2012, Benoit filed his third petition for federal habeas corpus relief, in which he again attacked his Iberia Parish convictions and sentences for possession of child pornography.4 Benoit v. Warden, Elayn Hunt Correctional Center, Civil Action 6:12-cv-2856. That petition, like his second petition, was dismissed without prejudice because the petition was a second and successive habeas petition within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b), filed without prior authorization of the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. [Id. at rec. docs. 6 and 7].
While some of these petitions were pending in this Court, Benoit filed a civil rights action in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. That action was transferred to this court on January 25, 2010. Benoit v. Sixteenth Judicial District Court, Civil Action 6:10-0138. In his rambling pleadings, Benoit made complaints similar to those asserted in his prior federal habeas corpus petitions, in essence, again arguing that he was falsely arrested, accused, prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced, that his property was illegally seized, and that despite having provided proof to establish thathis continued incarceration is unlawful, he still nevertheless remained imprisoned.5 In support of his Complaint, Benoit attached various exhibits, the majority of which were filed or created in connection with his state court prosecution.6 On April 6, 2010, this Court dismissed plaintiff's civil rights action as follows: (1) insofar as plaintiff soughtmonetary damages for an unlawful arrest, prosecution, conviction and imprisonment, the action was dismissed with prejudice, subject to reassertion if the requirements of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994) are met; (2) insofar as the action sought Benoit's immediate or speedier release from custody, the action was dismissed with prejudice for failing to state a claim for which relief may be granted because such relief is not available in a civil rights action; (3) insofar as the action sought money damages from Clerk of Court Michael Thibodeaux, the action was dismissed with prejudice for seeking damages from a defendant who is immune from suit; and (4) plaintiff's claims against the Sixteenth Judicial District Court were dismissed with prejudice as frivolous and as failing to state a claim for which relief may be granted because the Sixteenth Judicial District Court is not an entity capable of being sued. [Id. at rec. docs. 8 and 9].
Undaunted by this Court's prior Rulings dismissing all of Benoit's challenges to his arrest, post-arrest seizure of property, criminal prosecution, convictions, sentences and resulting incarceration, Benoit again attempts to challenge his present incarceration, asserting essentially the same claims previously rejected by this Court. For essentially the same reasons this Court previously dismissed Benoit's claims, the undersigned again recommends that they be dismissed with prejudice.
In his prior actions, Benoit was proceeding in forma pauperis. However, in this action, Benoit has paid this Court's filing fee. That difference does not change the result of this proceeding. When a prisoner files a civil action against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court is obligated to evaluate the complaint and dismiss it without service of process, if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; Ruiz v. United States, 160 F.3d 273, 274 (5th Cir. 1998); see also 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1) (). The screening provisions of § 1915A "appl[y] regardless of whether the plaintiff has paid a filing fee or is proceeding in forma pauperis." (emphasis added) Ruiz, 160 F.3d at 274.
A claim is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact. Gonzalez v. Wyatt, 157 F.3d 1016, 1019 (5th Cir. 1998) citing Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997). A claim has no arguable basis in law if it is based on an indisputablymeritless legal theory. Talib v. Gilley, 138 F.3d 211, 213 (5th Cir. 1998). A claim has no arguable basis in fact if "after providing the plaintiff the opportunity to present additional facts when necessary, the facts alleged are clearly baseless." Id. A complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim if the allegations, taken as true, show the plaintiff is not entitled to relief. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215 (2007); see also Bradley v. Puckett, 157 F.3d 1022, 1025 (5th Cir...
To continue reading
Request your trial