Brandon Lavergne v. Mike Harson , 583 F. App'x 362 ( 2014 )

Case: 14-30224 Document: 00512814565 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/24/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 14-30224 FILED
Summary Calendar October 24, 2014
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
BRANDON SCOTT LAVERGNE,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
MIKE HARSON; OFFICE OF 15TH J.D.C. DISTRICT ATTORNEY,
Defendants-Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 6:13-CV-2120
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 Mike
Harson, the District Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial District, and the Office
of the District Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial District. The district court
dismissed the complaint as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994),
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 14-30224 Document: 00512814565 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/24/2014
No. 14-30224
and, alternatively, for failure to state a claim because District Attorney Harson
was entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity and the District Attorney’s
Office was not an entity capable of being sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Additionally, the district court dismissed Lavergne’s claims he asserted under
Louisiana state law 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, Lavernge contends that his claims for libel, slander, malicious
prosecution, release of false information and statements, and return of
personal belongings are not grounds to overturn his convictions and, therefore,
that Heck does not apply. We disagree. Lavergne’s claims arise out of the
appellees’ prosecutions of him for murder. If the district court were to award
him damages as to any of these claims, it would implicitly call into question
the validity of his 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, the district
court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motions to amend his
complaint because the amendments were futile in light of the Heck bar. Leal
v. McHugh, 731 F.3d 405, 417 (5th Cir. 2013). 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).
Finally, 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). His
motion to appoint counsel is DENIED.
AFFIRMED.
2