LaVergne v. Stutes
19-30842
| 5th Cir. | Jul 8, 2021Background:
- In 2012 LaVergne pled guilty to two counts of first-degree murder and received life in prison, to be served in restricted custody/solitary under his plea agreement.
- He pursued multiple state collateral appeals and a federal habeas petition (denied), then filed numerous federal suits (some frivolous) and was sanctioned; he must prepay filing fees.
- While at Louisiana State Penitentiary (LSP) he was housed in restricted custody (2012–June 2017; returned Oct. 2018 after an attempted escape) and in dorms (June 2017–Oct. 2018) where he alleged overcrowding, filth, drug use, double-bunking, and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke.
- LaVergne sued numerous state actors under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and RLUIPA alleging a conspiracy producing an illegal plea/sentence, unconstitutional solitary confinement and dorm conditions, denial of access to courts (poor law-library/counsel and state court fees), and religious-rights violations.
- The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissed the consolidated complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; LaVergne appealed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Heck bars claims attacking plea/sentence or related conditions | LaVergne: his claims are distinct and do not necessarily imply invalidity of conviction/sentence | Defendants: success would call conviction/sentence into question → Heck bar | Court: Conspiracy/claims that would invalidate plea/sentence are Heck-barred; but Eighth Amendment challenges to conditions (solitary) may survive Heck; remanded limited solitary claim against Cain and LeBlanc |
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies for return to restricted custody (Oct. 2018) | LaVergne: exhausted appeals (eventually) | Defendants: exhaustion required before filing | Court: Claim relating to second assignment to restricted custody was unexhausted at filing → dismissal affirmed |
| Immunity of prosecutors, judge, and private attorney | LaVergne sued many officials for their roles | Defendants: prosecutorial and judicial absolute immunity; private attorney not acting under color of law | Court: Imbler and judicial immunity apply → dismiss those defendants; only Cain and LeBlanc remain for remanded solitary claim |
| Eighth Amendment challenge to dorm conditions (overcrowding, odors, double-bunking, ETS) | LaVergne: conditions were atypical, unsafe, and cruel | Defendants: allegations are conclusory, lack objective serious harm or deliberate indifference | Court: Allegations insufficient under Rule 12(b)(6); many conditions not per se Eighth Amendment violations → dismissal affirmed |
| Denial of access to courts (law library/inmate counsel and state-court fees) | LaVergne: limited library/counsel and state fees prevented appeals | Defendants: no showing of specific, nonfrivolous claim hindered | Court: Plaintiff failed to allege actual prejudice or identify affected claims → dismissal affirmed |
| RLUIPA: destruction of Bibles and denial of church access | LaVergne: religious exercise burdened (pages torn, denied church in CCR) | Defendants: Bible incidents not state action; RLUIPA does not permit individual-capacity damages and sovereign immunity bars money damages for past harms | Court: Bible-destruction allegation fails to show government action; denial of church during CCR might state a RLUIPA claim but Sossamon and sovereign immunity preclude individual-capacity/damages and past-money-relief claims → RLUIPA claims dismissed |
| Setting aside entry of default for two defendants | LaVergne: entitled to hearing before defaults set aside | Defendants: service defective; good cause to set aside default | Court: District court did not abuse discretion in setting aside defaults; no hearing required → affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (§1983 claims that would necessarily imply invalidity of conviction/sentence are barred absent prior invalidation)
- Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005) (distinguishes challenges to confinement conditions from attacks on fact or duration of confinement)
- Smith v. Hood, 900 F.3d 180 (5th Cir. 2018) (analyzing temporal/conceptual distinctness for Heck issues)
- Bush v. Strain, 513 F.3d 492 (5th Cir. 2008) (same framework for distinctness of claims from conviction)
- Ballard v. Burton, 444 F.3d 391 (5th Cir. 2006) (coexistence test for conviction and civil claim)
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) (prosecutorial absolute immunity for actions in initiating/presenting prosecution)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference standard for Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claims)
- Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (1993) (plaintiff must show he is exposed to unreasonably high levels of environmental tobacco smoke)
- Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996) (right of access to courts requires showing of actual injury to nonfrivolous legal claim)
- Sossamon v. Texas, 563 U.S. 277 (2011) (states do not waive sovereign immunity to money damages under RLUIPA)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (pro se complaints are construed liberally)
- Lampton v. Diaz, 639 F.3d 223 (5th Cir. 2011) (de novo review of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals)