Johnson v. Abels
2:22-cv-00119
| E.D. La. | Feb 22, 2022Background
- Plaintiff Patrick Ryan Johnson, a Louisiana state prisoner, sued Twenty-First Judicial District Court Judge Brian Abels under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after the judge rejected plea offers and imposed consecutive sentences.
- Johnson sought only one form of relief: an order directing Judge Abels to run his charges/concurrent rather than consecutive.
- The action was filed in forma pauperis and thus subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A.
- The magistrate judge recommended dismissal as frivolous and/or for failure to state a claim because judicial acts by a state judge are covered by absolute judicial immunity.
- The report explained that the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1996 limits injunctive relief against judges in § 1983 suits absent a violated declaratory decree or unavailability of declaratory relief.
- The report further noted that challenges to convictions or sentences must proceed by federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and that Johnson had not exhausted state remedies (no filings in the Louisiana Supreme Court).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1983 can be used to challenge Judge Abels’ judicial decisions | Johnson contends the judge violated his rights by denying plea deals and imposing consecutive sentences | Judge Abels is immune for acts performed in judicial capacity; § 1983 is not available to challenge judicial acts | Claims under § 1983 challenging judicial acts are barred by judicial immunity; dismissal recommended |
| Availability of injunctive relief against a state judge under § 1983 after the FCIA amendment | Johnson seeks an order altering his state sentences (injunctive relief) | FCIA amended § 1983 to restrict injunctive relief against judges absent a violated declaratory decree or unavailable declaratory relief | Injunctive relief unavailable in this § 1983 action; claim cannot proceed |
| Whether a federal court can direct a state judge to manage state criminal proceedings (mandamus) | Johnson effectively asks federal court to order state judge to change sentencing concurrency | Federal courts lack power to direct state courts or judges in performance of their duties when mandamus is the sole relief sought | Federal court cannot grant the requested mandamus-style relief over state court proceedings |
| Proper vehicle for relief and exhaustion of state remedies | Johnson implies his conviction/sentences are unconstitutional and seeks relief in this suit | Challenges to conviction/sentence must be brought via § 2254 habeas after exhausting state remedies | Such claims must be raised in habeas and Johnson has not exhausted state remedies; § 1983 conversion would be futile |
Key Cases Cited
- Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (judicial immunity protects judges for acts within their jurisdiction)
- Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (judicial immunity applies even if actions alleged malicious)
- Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522 (discusses injunctive relief against state judges; later limited by statute)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity principles and related discussion)
- Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (relief implicating duration of confinement must be sought via habeas)
- Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (requires exhaustion of state remedies before federal habeas relief)
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (frivolous-complaint standard and authority to dismiss baseless allegations)
- Reeves v. Collins, 27 F.3d 174 (frivolous standard under § 1915)