Jennings v. St. Tammany Parish Courts et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
BERT PATRICK JENNINGS 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NUMBER: 25-2192
ST. TAMMANY PARISH COURTS, ET AL. 	SECTION: “P” (5)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 proceeding was filed in forma pauperis by pro se Plaintiff, Bert
Patrick Jennings, against Defendants, the St. Tammany Parish Courts, the St. Tammany Parish
Sheriff’s Office and the St. Tammany Parish Family Court.1 	Plaintiff, an inmate of the St.
Tammany Parish Jail, complains of unlawful practices by the courts stemming from custody
proceedings, which he alleges resulted in the loss of custody of his children, the loss of his
family home in Mississippi, and resulted in a restraining order against him.2 He seeks $4.4
million dollars in compensatory damages.
As noted above, Plaintiff has initiated this suit in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915. 	A proceeding brought in forma pauperis may be dismissed as frivolous under
§1915(e)(2)(B)(i) if the claim alleged therein has no arguable basis in law or fact, Booker v.
Koonce, 2 F.3d 114 (5th Cir. 1993), or if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c).
Giving the instant complaint a liberal reading, it is the recommendation of the undersigned
1 ECF No. 3 at 4-7, Complaint.
2 The Court takes notice that Jennings filed a prior Section 1983 complaint in which he sued a different
defendant, and his rambling attachments to the complaint in that case set forth the same factual allegations
concerning custody and loss of his home. Civ. Action No. 25-1829 “G”(4), ECF No. 1-1 at 4-5.
Case 2:25-cv-02192-DJP Document 6 Filed 11/18/25 Page 1 of 4

2
Magistrate Judge that this matter be dismissed as frivolous and for failing to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted.
To state a cognizable claim under § 1983, an aggrieved party must allege that the
defendant, a “person” acting under color of state law and in accordance with an established
state procedure, deprived him of the rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution or laws of the United States. 42 U.S.C. § 1983; see West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48
(1988). Jennings names the St. Tammany Parish Sheriff's Office as a defendant in this case.
However, “a parish sheriff's office is not a legal entity capable of being sued in a federal civil
rights action.” Shorts v. St. Charles Par. Sheriff's Office, No. 24-2759, 2025 WL 2641774, at *3
(E.D. La. Sep. 15, 2025) (citing Cozzo v. Tangipahoa Par. Council-Pres. Govt., 279 F.3d 273, 283
(5th Cir. 2002)); Williamson v. Louisiana, No. 08-4598, 2008 WL 5082911, at *3 (E.D. La. Nov.
24, 2008) (“A prison or jail is not a ‘person’ subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983); Fitch v.
Terrebonne Par. Sheriff Dep't, No. 06-3307, 2006 WL 2690077, at *2 (E.D. La. Sept. 18, 2006);
Martinez v. Larpenter, No. 05-874, 2005 WL 3549524, at *5 (E.D. La. Nov. 1, 2005); Causey v.
Par. of Tangipahoa, 167 F.Supp.2d 898, 904 (E.D. La. 2001); Ruggiero v. Litchfield, 700 F.
Supp. 863, 865 (M.D. La. 1988). 	Because the St. Tammany Parish Sheriff's Office is not a
person or suable entity under § 1983, his claims against it must be dismissed.
Jennings also identifies as named defendants the “St. Tammany Parish Courts” and
“St. Tammany Parish Family Court.” 	However, “state courts are not considered ‘persons’
within the meaning of § 1983.” Moity v. La. St. Bar Assoc., 414 F. Supp. 180, 182 (E.D. La.),
aff'd, 537 F.2d 1141 (5th Cir. 1976); Dunn v. Louisiana, No. 10-4519, 2011 WL 446651, at *3
(E.D. La. Jan. 20, 2011), report and recommendation adopted, 2011 WL 445684, at *1 (E.D. La.
Feb. 3, 2011); Thompson v. St. Bernard Par. Ct., No. 09-4465, 2010 WL 110797, at *3 (E.D. La.
Case 2:25-cv-02192-DJP Document 6 Filed 11/18/25 Page 2 of 4

3
Jan. 11, 2010); Stewart v. Crim. Dist. Ct. of Louisiana, No. 08-3731, 2008 WL 4758610, at *2
(E.D. La. Oct. 30, 2008); Knight v. Guste, No. 07-1124, 2007 WL 1248039, at *3 (E.D. La. Apr.
27, 2007). Even if the state trial court could be sued, claims against the court, as a division
or agency of the State, would be barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Jefferson v. Louisiana
State Supreme Court, No. 01-31275, 2002 WL 1973897 (5th Cir. Aug. 9, 2002); Wilkerson v.
17th Judicial District Court, Civ. Action No. 08–1196, 2009 WL 249737, at *3–4 (E.D. La. Jan.
30, 2009). Unless a state has waived its immunity, the Eleventh Amendment bars the state’s
citizens from filing suit against the state in federal court for either monetary damages or
injunctive relief. Cozzo v. Tangipahoa Parish Council-President Government, 279 F.3d at 280.
Generally, the State of Louisiana has not waived its immunity or consented to the exercise of
federal judicial power in civil actions against it. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13:5106(A); Cozzo, 279
F.3d at 281; Delahoussaye v. City of New Iberia, 937 F.2d 144, 147 (5th Cir. 1991). 	It is
therefore recommended that Jennings’ § 1983 claims against “St. Tammany Parish Courts”
and “St. Tammany Parish Family Court” be dismissed.3
3 Even if he had named a proper defendant, to the extent he may be challenging prior judgments made by the
state court surrounding custody matters, and seeking to relitigate them here, the federal courts cannot hear
such matters pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S.
280, 284 (2005) (holding that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies to “cases brought by state-court losers
complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings
commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments”); Desper v. Demastus, et al., No.
20-cv-749, 2021 WL 5049773, at *4 (W.D. Va. Nov. 1, 2021) (dismissing petitioner’s § 1983 complaint seeking
to challenge the termination of his parental rights or modification of the custody award); Davis v. Singer, No.
13cv7, 2014 WL 12598862, at *2-3 (E.D. Va. Aug. 5, 2014) (refusing to interfere with a state court’s final
decision terminating parental rights, citing the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and explaining that a plaintiff may
not “seek a reversal of a state court judgment simply by recasting his complaint in the form of a civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983” (quotation and citation omitted)). For this reason, granting leave to amend
would be futile in this case.
Case 2:25-cv-02192-DJP Document 6 Filed 11/18/25 Page 3 of 4

4
RECOMMENDATION
For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that Jennings’ suit be dismissed without
prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii).
A party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and
recommendation contained in a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation within 14
days after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error,
from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions
accepted by the district court, provided that the party has been served with notice that such
consequences will result from a failure to object. Douglass v. United States Auto. Assoc., 79
F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).4
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 	day of 	, 2025.
MICHAEL B. NORTH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
4 Douglass referenced the previously-applicable 10-day period for the filing of objections. Effective December
1, 2009, 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) was amended to extend that period to 14 days.
November	17th
Case 2:25-cv-02192-DJP Document 6 Filed 11/18/25 Page 4 of 4