Mann v. DNA Analyst

• Decision Date: 01 February 2023
• Docket Number: Civil Action 22-1294
• Parties: ORIGINAL MANN v. DNA ANALYST, ET AL.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana

ORIGINAL MANN v. DNA ANALYST, ET AL.

Civil Action No. 22-1294

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

February 1, 2023

SECTION “M” (4)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

KAREN WELLS ROBY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Several defendants have filed motions seeking dismissal of plaintiff Original Mann's original and amended complaints: (1) Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 34) by Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry; (2) Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 45) by U.S. Attorney Duane Evans and current and former Assistant U.S. Attorneys Maurice Landrieu Elizabeth Privitera, William Quinlan, and Gregory Kennedy (3) Motion to Dismiss the Amended and Supplemental Complaints (ECF No. 47) by Innocence Project, Inc and (4) Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to F.R.C.P 12(b)(6), or alternatively, for Summary Judgment Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 56 (ECF No. 53) by Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office.^[1] This was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge to conduct a hearing, including an evidentiary hearing, if necessary, and to submit proposed findings and recommendations for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), § 1915e(2), and § 1915A, and as applicable 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1) and(2). Upon review of the record, the Court has determined that this matter can be disposed of without an evidentiary hearing.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Plaintiff Original Mann (“Mann”) (a/k/a Cyrus Casby and Original Juice Man) is a convicted inmate currently housed in the U.S. Penitentiary in Atwater, California.^[2] Mann filed this pro se civil rights complaint against defendants DNA analysts Ann Montgomery (“Montgomery”), Bonnie Dubourg (“Dubourg”), and Greg Harrell (“Harrell”), Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office (“JPSO”), U.S. Attorney Duane Evans (“Evans”), Assistant U.S. Attorneys Maurice Landrieu (“Landrieu”), Elizabeth Privitera (“Privitera”), William Quinlan (“Quinlan”), and Gregory Kennedy (“Kennedy”), defense attorneys Michael Riehlmann (“Riehlmann”), Robin Ljungberg (“Ljungberg”), and Jerome Matthews (“Matthews”), Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry (“Landry”), the Innocence Project - New Orleans, the Innocence Project - New York, the American Civil Liberties Union (“ACLU”), the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (“NAACP”), Black Lives Matter, and the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors (“ASCLD”).

Having thoroughly reviewed and broadly construed Mann's original and amended complaints, Mann presents claims against these federal and state officials, and several private entities, seeking monetary relief for alleged wrongdoings which culminated in his federal criminal conviction in United States v. Casby, Crim. Action 11-130 (E.D. La.), and his continued imprisonment. The events underlying Mann's federal conviction under his prior name, Cyrus Casby, were summarized by the District Court in that case as follows:

Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Deputies responded to a fire in Apartment C of a two-story four-plex at 1005 Tallowtree Lane in Harvey, Louisiana in the early morning of November 10, 2014. The bodies of Cynthia Carto, her 19-month-old daughter Cyanna Carto, Janice Carto, and Cleveland McGinnis, Jr. were found inside. Cynthia died from multiple stab wounds before the fire started. Janice and Cleveland also had stab wounds but were alive when the fire began. They, along with Cyanna, died as a result of the fire. Jarvis Carto survived the fire but sustained significant brain damage.

Defendant Cyrus Casby (“Casby”) was taken to the Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office within an hour. Casby waived his Miranda rights and gave three statements to detectives. In the first two, Casby denied setting the fire but admitted that he was in the apartment a few hours before the fire and had an altercation with unknown males who tried to steal his car radio. In the third, Casby admitted to fighting with and stabbing the Carto family in self-defense and burning his leg as he fled the apartment. Casby was prosecuted for four counts of second degree murder in the 24th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson. On May 31, 2008, the jury acquitted him of all counts.

On June 2, 2011, a federal grand jury indicted Casby for arson that resulted in the deaths of Cyanna and Cleveland and the injuries of Janice, Jarvis, and Fireman Walter Allen, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 844(i). This Court made numerous accommodations in its appointment of counsel throughout this case. First, two attorneys were appointed for the then-capital proceedings: Valerie Welz Jusselin and Kerry P. Cuccia. After motions were filed and hearings were held, the Court granted Casby's request to replace them with two CJA-appointed counsel. When the Government indicated it would not seek the death penalty, the Court appointed Robin Ljungberg in place of the two prior CJA counsel. Mr. Ljungberg was appointed at the recommendation of the Federal Public Defender, and he represented Casby at trial.

Casby was convicted after a five-day trial. He then fired Mr. Ljungberg, and the Court appointed Michael Riehlmann. Ultimately, Casby fired Mr. Riehlmann and retained his seventh attorney in this case, Jerome Matthews.

After Casby was sentenced to life imprisonment and a notice of appeal was filed, Mr. Matthews was permitted to withdraw. Casby filed a motion to proceed pro se in his criminal appeal, and the Fifth Circuit allowed Julie Tizzard, counsel hired by Casby's family, to withdraw. The Fifth Circuit gave Casby three opportunities to pursue his appeal before finally dismissing his appeal for want of prosecution on December 2, 2016. The United States Supreme Court denied Casby's petition for writ of certiorari.

United States v. Casby, No. 11cr130, 2018 WL 6602088, at *1 (E.D. La. Dec. 17, 2018) (order denying 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate).

In this case, Mann seeks monetary and injunctive relief alleging that the defendants, through his federal criminal conviction after an unsuccessful state prosecution, violated his right to be free from double jeopardy. ECF No. 5 (Original Complaint). He also claims that the DNA analysts framed him for murder based on their inaccurate testing of the DNA evidence. He also asserts that his prior defense attorneys ignored and failed to correct the invalid evidence and wrongdoings by the prosecutors. He further sues the other defendants in globo for using tax dollars to protect others' civil rights while ignoring his and preventing him from exhaustion administrative remedies.

He further seeks a finding of reasonable doubt about his guilt because the DNA evidence was contaminated when the clothing and items it was taken from had been mixed, transferred without a proper chain of custody, and removed from the sequence in which they were seized by JPSO deputies. ECF No. 6 (Amended Complaint). He also claims that the analysts lied about what they tested and when items were tested. He also claims that defendant Dubourg committed perjury where her state and federal trial testimony differed about unknown male DNA she discovered. Id. at 4. He also complains that he has been denied access to copies of the applicable standard operating procedures and was called a liar when seeking collateral assistance.

Mann also seeks to hold the federal prosecutors responsible for relying on the mishandled DNA and for Assistant U.S. Attorney Landrieu's alleged withholding of iPhone records, bedroom photographs, psychiatric records, and an Astro van chain of custody report. ECF No. 15 (Third Amended Complaint). Mann claims this withholding was part of a Brady motion addressed in his federal criminal proceeding Crim. Action 11-130. He also claims that the federal prosecutors relied on false and perjured testimony to gain a conviction. He further claims that U.S. Attorney Evans failed to take action on his “DNA complaint” in 2017, and instead “unethically” wrote to Attorney General Landry and placed responsibility on JPSO without himself taking any action on the complaint. ECF No. 12, at 9. Mann seeks compensatory damages from the prosecutors for defamation, cruel and unusual punishment, trauma, and vindictive prosecutions.

Mann also claims that he has suffered mental repercussions as a result of defendants' mishandling of his criminal evidence. Mann asserts that he is being harassed, sexually assaulted, and having other issues in federal prison which constitutes cruel and unusual punishment resulting from defendants' wrongdoings. ECF No. 12, at 6 (Second Amended Complaint). As a result, Mann seeks $126 million for himself, $10 million for his family foundation, $10 million in cryptocurrency, counseling, and restraining orders to prevent the JPSO, the New Orleans Police Department, and the Federal Bureau of Investigations from arresting, stalking, and harassing him when he is released from prison. ECF Nos. 5, 6.

II. Standards of Review

A. Screening for Frivolousness

Plaintiff is a federal prisoner. As such, his complaint is subject to preliminary screening and dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Martin v. Scott, 156 F.3d 578, 579-80 (5th Cir. 1998). Section 1915A “institutes certain screening procedures once a complaint is received by a district court” and is “quite similar to the roles played by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 11 and 12(b)(6).” Id. at 580, n.2; see also Garcia v. Jones 910 F.3d 188, 190 (5th Cir. 2018) (“We review a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim de novo, applying the same plausibility standard applicable to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) dismissals.”). Pursuant to § 1915A(b)(1), federal courts are mandated to initially screen prisoner complaints against government officials or entities to identify cognizable claims and dismiss the complaint or any...