Beckley v. Johnson et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
DANIEL LEE BECKLEY (#728916) CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
MARC E. JOHNSON, ET AL. NO. 24-766-BAJ-SDJ
RULING AND ORDER
Plaintiff, an incarcerated person at Louisiana State Penitentiary who is
representing himself without assistance of counsel, filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Marc E. Johnson, Stephen J. Windhorst, and John
J. Molaison, Jr., all judges at the Louisiana Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
(Doc. 1). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have interfered with Plaintiffs
constitutional right to equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment
of the U.S. Constitution, and his right to judicial review under the Louisiana
Constitution. (Id.). Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, including reversal of his
conviction and a new trial. (Id.).
Pursuant to the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A,
the Magistrate Judge has now issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19,
the "Report"), recommending that the Court dismiss Plaintiffs claims, with
prejudice, as legally frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted. Plaintiff timely filed an objection. (Doc. 20). Plaintiffs objection, however,
fails to address the underlying jurisdictional issue that this Court has no power to
grant the injunctive relief he seeks under § 1983. (Doc. 19 at 4). Plaintiff seeks leave
Case 3:24-cv-00766-BAJ-SDJ Document 22 02/11/26 Page 1 of 3

to amend the relief requested in his Complaint. (Doc. 20 at 3-4). However, the relief
Plaintiff would request upon amendment, "ordering that the appellate record in
Plaintiffs direct appeal be reconstructed and a hearing be conducted to determine if
Plaintiff suffered any prejudice by the missing portions of the record, still constitutes
relief that the Court cannot grant under § 1983 and would be more appropriately
requested through a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Id.). As the Report
notes, Plaintiff has filed a previous habeas petition in this matter, which was
dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. 19 at n. 21). As such, allowing Plaintiff to amend his
complaint would be futile "because any amendment consistent with the facts alleged
would be subject to dismissal" as a successive habeas petition. (Id.). Wiggins u.
Louisiana State University — Health Care Services Division, 710 Fed. Appx.625, 627
(5th Cir. 2017).
After careful consideration of the Complaint (Doc. 1), the Report (Doc. 19), and
Plaintiffs Objection (Doc. 20), the Court APPROVES the Report and ADOPTS it as
the Court's opinion in this matter.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs claims against all Defendants are
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Case 3:24-cv-00766-BAJ-SDJ Document 22 02/11/26 Page 2 of 3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will consider this dismissal as a
strike against Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this Ll—~5ay o^February, 2026	// ^
n-
JUDGE BRIAN A. JACKSON
UNITED STATES EfeSTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Case 3:24-cv-00766-BAJ-SDJ Document 22 02/11/26 Page 3 of 3