637 F. App'x 111
5th Cir.2015Background
- Plaintiff Dannon Sellers, a Louisiana prisoner, appealed the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and moved to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).
- Sellers alleged Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board (LADB) employees failed to discipline prosecutors who proceeded under an allegedly invalid bill of information.
- District court dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), ruling Sellers’ claims either sounded in habeas, were barred by Heck for damages, or were barred by prosecutorial immunity.
- Sellers also sought a preliminary injunction compelling LADB to order dismissal of the bill of information and revoke prosecutors’ licenses; the district court implicitly denied injunctive relief.
- Fifth Circuit denied IFP, found the appeal frivolous, affirmed dismissal, and held Sellers has accumulated strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), barring future IFP filings absent imminent danger.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appeal is taken in good faith / IFP entitlement | Sellers contends appeal raises nonfrivolous claims and seeks IFP | District court certified appeal not in good faith; dismissal was proper | Appeal not taken in good faith; IFP denied; appeal dismissed as frivolous |
| Whether §1983 claims challenge validity of confinement (habeas vs §1983) | Sellers says he challenges prosecutorial process, not conviction validity | Defendants and court: claims implicate the validity of conviction/release and thus are habeas in nature | Claims that imply invalidity of conviction/sought release must be pursued via §2254 habeas (Preiser) |
| Whether damage claims barred by Heck v. Humphrey | Sellers seeks damages for allegedly illegal detention | Defendants invoke Heck: damages barred until conviction invalidated | Damages alleging unlawful confinement are Heck-barred until conviction/sentence invalidated |
| Whether LADB employees are immune from suit and whether equitable relief is available | Sellers argues LADB must act because prosecutors violated his rights and seeks injunctive relief | Defendants claim absolute prosecutorial immunity for disciplinary decisions; immunity doesn't bar equitable relief but injunctive relief not shown | LADB employees are absolutely immune re: prosecutorial acts (Imbler); Sellers failed to show likelihood of success or irreparable harm for injunction; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197 (5th Cir. 1997) (standard for certifying an appeal not taken in good faith for IFP denial)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (damages for unconstitutional conviction barred until conviction invalidated)
- Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973) (challenge to fact or duration of confinement must be brought in habeas)
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) (prosecutors entitled to absolute immunity for prosecutorial acts)
- Green v. State Bar of Texas, 27 F.3d 1083 (5th Cir. 1994) (application of prosecutorial/disciplinary immunity principles)
- Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 1996) (strikes under §1915(g) for frivolous suits)
- Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 1759 (2015) (clarifying application of §1915(g) strikes)