Porter

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

TOMARCUS PORTER CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO: 24-2871

JOHNATHEN TYNES, ET AL. SECTION: D

ORDER

The Court, having considered the Complaint,1 the Motions to Dismiss for Lack

of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and Failure to

State a Claim Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), filed by defendants, Jonathan

Tynes, Brooke Thomas, Billy Mersereau, Andria Johnson, Truly Dillon, and Kevin

Luper,2 Plaintiff’s Motion for Cross Summary Judgment,3 the record, the applicable

law, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation,4 the failure of plaintiff,

Tomarcus Porter, to file any objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation5, and finding that the Magistrate Judge’s analysis is not clearly

erroneous or contrary to the law, and having construed Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint6

liberally, hereby approves the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and

adopts it as its opinion herein.

While Plaintiff did not file any objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation, the Court notes that Plaintiff filed a “Writ to Object of Defense

1 R. Doc. 21.

2 R. Doc. 39.

3 R. Doc. 45.

4 R. Doc. 56.

5 Considering Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court allowed for additional time to file objections. As of

the date of this Order, none have been filed.

6 R. Doc. 21.

Motion to Dismiss” on November 21, 2025, opposing the Defendants’ Motion to

Dismiss after the Magistrate Judge issued the Report and Recommendation.7

Plaintiff clarifies that he brought claims against the Defendants in both their

individual and official capacities,8 and seems to argue that Defendants are not

entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.9 Plaintiff claims that

Congress has abrogated states’ sovereign immunity in the Religious Land Use and

Institutionalized Person Act (the “RLUIPA”), which Plaintiff contends allows relief

“against all Governments and branches and agencies of Governments, as well as

individuals, for infringements of religious freedom.”10 Plaintiff asserts that the

RLUIPA provides for injunctive relief against religious restrictions, that “some

courts” have held that the RLUIPA abrogates states’ sovereign immunity against

damages in federal court, and that damages are available when suing the state

government or state officials acting in their official capacity.11 The legal authority

cited by Plaintiff, however, does not support his position.

More importantly, the Magistrate Judge addressed these issues in the Report

and Recommendation, explaining that Eleventh Amendment immunity applies to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 claims against the State of Louisiana and, by extension, to official

7 R. Doc. 57. Notedly, while this was filed two days after the Magistrate Judge issued the Report and

Recommendation, it is unlikely that Plaintiff had yet received the Report and Recommendation as it

was only mailed to Plaintiff at Louisiana State Penitentiary on November 18, 2025. Further, it does

not reference the Report and Recommendation.

8 Id. at p. 3.

9 Id. at pp. 1–2.

10 Id. at p. 2.

11 Id. (citing Lighthouse Institute for Evangelism, Inc. v. City of Long Branch, 510 F.3d 253, 272–73

(3rd Cir. 2007), cert. denied 553 U.S. 1065, 128 S.Ct. 2503, 171 L.Ed.2d 787 (2008); Shidler v. Moore,

409 F. Supp. 2d 1060, 1069 (N.D. Ind. 2006)).

capacity claims for monetary damages against Louisiana state officers, like

Defendants.12 The Magistrate Judge correctly pointed out that when the Eleventh

Amendment applies, federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over the claim.13

The Magistrate Judge also explained that, apart from Eleventh Amendment

immunity, Plaintiff’s claims for monetary damages fail because state officials sued in

their official capacities do not qualify as “persons” under § 1983 and because

monetary damages are not available for claims brought against state employees in

their official capacities under the RLUIPA.14 The Magistrate Judge further pointed

out that while the Eleventh Amendment does not bar suit against officials in their

individual capacities, the RLUIPA does not authorize a private cause of action

against defendants in their individual capacities.15

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against

defendants, Jonathan Tynes, Brooke Thomas, Billy Mersereau, Andria Johnson,

Truly Dillon, and Kevin Luper, are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), § 1915A and, as applicable, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, as

frivolous and for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted.

12 R. Doc. 56 at pp. 10–11 (citing Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 169, 105 S.Ct. 3099, 87 L.Ed.2d

114 (1985); McKinley v. Abbott, 643 F.3d 403, 406 (5th Cir. 2011); K.P. v. LeBlanc, 627 F.3d 115, 124

(5th Cir. 2010)).

13 R. Doc. 56 at p. 11 (quoting Bryant v. Texas Dep’t of Aging & Disability Services, 781 F.3d 764, 769

(5th Cir. 2015)) (citation modified).

14 R. Doc. 56 at pp. 11–12 (citing Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71, 109 S.Ct. 2304,

105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989); Sossamon v. Lone Star State of Texas, 560 F.3d 316, 331 (5th Cir. 2009); De

Moss v. Crain, 636 F.3d 145, 151 (5th Cir. 2011)).

15 R. Doc. 56 at pp. 12–13 (citing Martin v. Thomas, 973 F.2d 449, 458 (5th Cir. 1992); Landor v.

Louisiana Dep’t of Corr. & Pub. Safety, 82 F.4th 337, 341 (5th Cir. 2023)).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss for Lack

of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and Failure to

State a Claim Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)!6 and Plaintiff's Motion for Cross

Summary Judgment? are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, as moot.

New Orleans, Louisiana, January 16, 2026.

ed Vettir

WENDY B.IVITTER

United States District Judge

16 R, Doce. 39.

17 R, Doe. 45.