Brandon Lavergne v. Louisiana State Police , 583 F. App'x 363 ( 2014 )

Case: 14-30257 Document: 00512814562 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/24/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-30257 United States Court of Appeals
Summary Calendar
Fifth Circuit
FILED
October 24, 2014
BRANDON SCOTT LAVERGNE, Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
LOUISIANA STATE POLICE,
Defendant-Appellee
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 6:13-CV-2189
Before PRADO, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Brandon Scott Lavergne, Louisiana prisoner # 424229, pleaded guilty to
two counts of first degree murder for the murders of Michaela Shunick and
Lisa Pate. Thereafter, Lavergne filed a civil rights complaint against the
Louisiana State Police. The district court dismissed the complaint as barred
by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), and, alternatively, for failure to
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 14-30257 Document: 00512814562 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/24/2014
No. 14-30257
state a claim because the Louisiana State Police were immune from suit.
Lavergne’s state law claims were dismissed without prejudice.
This court reviews a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) de novo applying the same standard that is used to review a
dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Black v. Warren, 134
F.3d 732, 733-34 (5th Cir. 1998).
Lavergne’s motion for leave to file a supplemental brief is GRANTED.
In his briefs, Lavergne again challenges the lawfulness of the actions taken by
the Louisiana State Police which led to the seizure of his phone and laptop. He
contends that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint prior to
service based upon Heck because the charges relating to his arrest by the
Louisiana State Police, i.e., failing to register as a sex offender, were eventually
dropped.
We disagree. Lavergne specifically alleged that the seized items were
used against him in the murder investigations and in fact that the actions of
the Louisiana State Police “caused” him to plead to the murder charges
notwithstanding his innocence. If the district court were to award him
damages as to any of his claims, it would implicitly call into question the
validity of his murder convictions. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 487; Penley v. Collin
County, Tex., 446 F.3d 572, 573 (5th Cir. 2006). In this same vein, any error
in denying his motions to amend was harmless because the amendments were
futile in light of the Heck bar. See United States v. Gonzalez, 592 F.3d 675, 681
(5th Cir. 2009. The district court did not err in dismissing Lavergne’s Heck-
barred claims with prejudice. See Johnson v. McElveen, 101 F.3d 423, 424 (5th
Cir. 1996). To the extent Lavergne raises new claims on appeal, we do not
address them. See Willard v. Ballard, 466 F.3d 330, 335 (5th Cir. 2006).
2
Case: 14-30257 Document: 00512814562 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/24/2014
No. 14-30257
Lavergne’s motion to appoint counsel is DENIED, and the district court’s
judgment is AFFIRMED.
3