Cheramie v. Webre

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

TREVOR MICHAEL CHERAMIE CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 21-1367

SHERIFF CRAIG WEBRE et al. SECTION: “G”

ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court are Plaintiff Trevor Michael Cheramie’s (“Plaintiff”) objections to the

Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge assigned to the case.1 Plaintiff,

a Louisiana state pretrial detainee, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against

Lafourche Parish Sheriff Craig Webre, Warden Cortell Davis, Nellie Vicks, Judge Hugh Larose,

Annie Chaisson, and Jennifer Exinicious.2 The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court

dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against Sheriff Craig Webre, Warden Cortell Davis, Nellie Vicks, Judge

Hugh Larose, and Annie Chaisson as frivolous, and for failure to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted.3 The Magistrate Judge recommended that the claims against Jennifer Exinicious

be allowed to proceed pending further development.4 Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s

recommendation.5 Considering the Complaint, the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff’s

objections, the record, and the applicable law, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s objections, adopts the

1 Rec. Doc. 13.

2 Rec. Docs. 1, 5.

3 Rec. Doc. 12.

4 Id.

5 Rec. Doc. 13.

Report and Recommendation, and dismisses the claims pending against Sheriff Craig Webre,

Warden Cortell Davis, Nellie Vicks, Judge Hugh Larose, and Annie Chaisson with prejudice.

I. Background

On July 19, 2021, Plaintiff filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Sheriff Craig

Webre, Warden Cortell Davis, Nellie Vicks, Judge Hugh Larose, Annie Chaisson, and Jennifer

Exinicious.6 Plaintiff claims that jail staff at the Lafourche Parish Correctional Complex tampered

with his mail.7 Plaintiff asserts that Judge Hugh Larose, the presiding judge in Plaintiff’s criminal

proceedings, improperly denied him a bond reduction.8 Plaintiff argues that his public defender,

Annie Chaisson, did not represent Plaintiff’s best interests.9 Plaintiff also claims that Jennifer

Exinicious “is in charge of judicial proceedings at L.P.C.C.”10 According to Plaintiff, he wrote to

Exinicious to request information about a speeding charge, but Exinicious never responded to

Plaintiff’s inquiry.11

The Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims against Sheriff

Craig Webre, Warden Cortell Davis, Nellie Vicks, Judge Hugh Larose, and Annie Chaisson be

dismissed with prejudice.12 The Magistrate Judge also recommended that Plaintiff’s claim against

6 Rec. Doc. 1; Rec. Doc. 8.

7 Rec. Doc. 8 at 5–6.

8 Id. at 6.

9 Id. at 7.

10 Id.

11 Id. at 7–8.

12 Rec. Doc. 12.

Jennifer Exinicious remain referred to the Magistrate Judge and be allowed to proceed pending

further development.13

First, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff’s claims against Annie Chaisson be

dismissed because public defenders are not state actors liable under § 1983.14 Second, the

Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff’s claims against Judge Hugh Larose be dismissed

because the judge enjoys absolute judicial immunity with respect to such claims.15

Third, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff’s claims against Sheriff Craig

Webre and Warden Cortell Davis be dismissed because the claims arise from their supervisory

positions in the jail, and there is no vicarious liability under § 1983.16

Fourth, the Magistrate Judge addressed Plaintiff’s claims against Nellie Vicks, who

Plaintiff alleges “is in charge of incoming & outgoing mail at the Lafourche Parish Correctional

Complex.”17 To the extent Plaintiff claims that other inmates’ mail was being tampered with, the

Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff did not have standing to raise such a claim on behalf of other

inmates.18 The Magistrate Judge also found that Plaintiff’s claims that his own mail was being

tampered with are wholly speculative.19 The Magistrate Judge reasoned that Plaintiff’s mail could

13 Id.

14 Id. at 4.

15 Id. at 4–6.

16 Id. at 6–7.

17 Id. at 7–9.

18 Id. at 7.

19 Id.

have gone astray any time before it reached Vicks and there is no way to prove that it is attributable

to her.20

Finally, the Magistrate Judge addressed Plaintiff’s claims against Jennifer Exinicious.21

The Magistrate Judge found the Plaintiff’s allegations against Exinicious were “too vague for [the

Court] to ascertain the exact nature of her role at the jail, the scope of her duties, and the precise

manner in which plaintiff believes that she has violated his rights.”22 Therefore, in light of

Plaintiff’s “pro se status and the lenient construction his allegations should be given at this stage

of the proceedings,” the Magistrate Judge recommended that the claim against Exinicious be

allowed to proceed pending further development and remain referred to the Magistrate Judge.23

II. Objections to Report and Recommendation

Plaintiff objects to the Report and Recommendation.24 Plaintiff states that he “never

directly inferred or suggested that . . . Vicks was directly responsible for [Plaintiff] not receiving

[his] mail.”25 Plaintiff states that Vicks was “reluctant to answer” his administrative grievance

form.26 Plaintiff asserts that there is no record of his letter to Sheriff Webre being logged into the

system, which Plaintiff asserts “is direct evidence of tampering with the mail by . . . Vicks or

whoever is responsible for the occurrence of [the] incident.”27 Plaintiff states that someone opened

20 Id. at 8–9.

21 Id.

22 Id.

23 Id. at 9–10.

24 Rec. Doc. 13.

25 Id. at 1.

26 Id.

27 Id.

a piece of legal mail he received from the Innocence Project of New Orleans.28 However, Plaintiff

acknowledges that he does not have any information to show that person was Vicks.29

III. Standard of Review

A. Review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation

When designated by a district court to do so, a United States Magistrate Judge may consider

prisoner petitions challenging the conditions of confinement and recommend a disposition to the

district court judge in accordance with the Magistrate Judge’s findings of fact and determinations

of law.30 A district judge “may accept, reject or modify the recommended disposition” of a

Magistrate Judge on a dispositive matter.31 The district judge must “determine de novo any part of

the [Report and Recommendation] that has been properly objected to.”32 However, a district

court’s review is limited to plain error of parts of the report not properly objected to.33

B. Standard for Frivolousness

A district court has broad discretion in determining the frivolous nature of a prisoner’s

complaint.34 A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact.35 A claim has no

arguable basis in law if “it is based on indisputable meritless legal theory.”36 It lacks a basis in

28 Id. at 2.

29 Id.

30 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

31 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1).

32 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

33 See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428–29 (5th Cir. 1996).

34 See Talib v. Gilley, 138 F.3d 211, 213 (5th Cir. 1998) (citations omitted).

35 Id.

36 Id.

facts if “the facts alleged are clearly baseless.”37 If a court finds a prisoner’s claims are frivolous,

the court must dismiss the claims sua sponte.38

IV. Law and Analysis

As an initial matter, Plaintiff does not object to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation

that the claims against Sheriff Craig Webre, Warden Cortell Davis, Judge Hugh Larose, and Annie

Chaisson be dismissed with prejudice.39 Reviewing for plain error, and finding none, the Court

adopts the Report and Recommendation to the extent it recommends that the claims against Sheriff

Craig Webre, Warden Cortell Davis, Judge Hugh Larose, and Annie Chaisson be dismissed with

prejudice.

Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the claims against Vicks

be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff initially asserted that he sent a complaint to the Attorney

Disciplinary Board in late May 2021 and a writ of habeas corpus to the Clerk of Court in mid-June

2021. Plaintiff alleged that Vicks must have tampered with his mail because he did not receive an

acknowledgement of either letter. The Magistrate Judge correctly found that such a claim was too

speculative to state a plausible claim against Vickers.40 Plaintiff’s mail could have been delayed,

lost, or destroyed by someone else at the jail, by the postal service, by the Disciplinary Board,

37 Id.

38 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; 42 U.S.C. §1997e(c).

39 Rec. Doc. 12.

40 In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007); accord Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.

662, 678 (2009) (holding a plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to state a claim when they are based on nothing more

than a “sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully”).

and/or by the court. Plaintiff does not allege any facts to state a claim against Vicks above the

speculative level.41

In objection to the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff also argues that someone opened

a piece of legal mail he received from the Innocence Project of New Orleans.42 However, Plaintiff

acknowledges that he does not have any information to show that person was Vicks.43 Even

assuming that Plaintiff could show Vicks was responsible for opening his incoming legal mail, the

Fifth Circuit “has held that prisoners do not have a constitutional right to be present when

privileged, legal mail is opened and inspected.”44 Therefore, Plaintiff has not stated a claim against

Vicks.

V. Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims against Sheriff Craig Webre,

Warden Cortell Davis, Nellie Vicks, Judge Hugh Larose, and Annie Chaisson must be dismissed

with prejudice as frivolous, for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and/or

for seeking monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s against Annie Chaisson, Judge Hugh

Larose, Sheriff Craig Webre, Warden Cortrell Davis, and Nellie Vicks are DISMISSED WITH

41 In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litigation, 495 F.3d at 205; accord Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678 (holding a

plaintiffs allegations are insufficient to state a claim when they are based on nothing more than a “sheer possibility

that a defendant has acted unlawfully”).

42 Rec. Doc. 13 at 2.

43 Id.

44 Collins v. Foster, 603 F. App’x 273, 275 (5th Cir. 2015) (citing Brewer v. Wilkinson, 3 F.3d 816, 825 (5th

Cir.1993); Patel v. Haro, 470 F. App’x 240, 244 (5th Cir. 2012)).

PREJUDICE as frivolous, for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and/or

for seeking monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's claim against Jennifer Exinicious remain

referred to the United States Magistrate Judge and is allowed to proceed pending further

development.

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this 20th day of April, 2022.

CHIEF JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT