# Thomas

> District Court, W.D. Louisiana · May 12, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11357586

## Case

- **Full name:** Billy R. Thomas v. Marcus L. Fontenot et al.
- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Louisiana
- **Decided:** May 12, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11357586

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAFAYETTE DIVISION

BILLY R THOMAS CASE NO. 6:23-CV-01074

VERSUS JUDGE ROBERT R. SUMMERHAYS

MARCUS L FONTENOT ET AL MAGISTRATE JUDGE DAVID J. AYO

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The undersigned issues the following sua sponte report and recommendation pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §§ 636 and 1915(e)(2)(B). Considering the record in this case, and for the reasons
explained below, this Court recommends that Plaintiff Billy R. Thomas’s remaining claims
in this matter be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous and for failing to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted.
Factual Background
Thomas’s pro se complaint vaguely alleges that he was wrongfully evicted from his
home pursuant to a protective order issued by Judge Marcus L. Fontenot on or about August
15, 2018. [Doc. 1 at ¶ 9]. It names as defendants Judge Fontenot; Alicia Phillips-Kelly, an
employee of the 13th Judicial District Court; Eugene Fontenot, owner of Euco Finance, Inc.
(“Euco”); and Hillary Richard and Renata C. Richard, employees of Euco. [Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 4, 7].
The Complaint asserts violations of Thomas’ Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment
rights under the Constitution, as well as violations of Louisiana Civil Code articles 2315,
2322, and 2317.1. [Id. at ¶ 8]. All claims against Judge Fontenot were previously dismissed
by the Court’s adoption of the August 14, 2024 Report and Recommendation based on
prescription and application of absolute judicial immunity. [Doc. 27]. Thomas appealed the
dismissal as to Judge Fontenot. [Doc. 34]. The Fifth Circuit briefly returned the case to the
Western District of Louisiana for clarification of service as to the remaining defendants. [Doc.
37]. Following the Court’s finding that service was made as to all remaining defendants, the
Fifth Circuit dismissed Thomas’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. [Doc. 43]. The appeal now
having been concluded, jurisdiction over the case is returned to this district court. Dayton
Indep. Sch. Dist. v. U.S. Mineral Prods. Co., 906 F.2d 1059 (5th Cir. 1990) (citing Coastal
Corp. v. Tex. Eastern Corp., 869 F.2d 817, 820–21 (5th Cir. 1989)).
Applicable Standards

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), where a plaintiff is permitted to proceed in forma
pauperis, district courts
shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that –
(A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or
(B) the action or appeal –
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted; or

(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief.

This statute “applies equally to prisoner and non-prisoner cases.” Booker v. Koonce, 2
F.3d 114, 115-16 (5th Cir. 1993) (internal citations omitted). Pro se filings are construed
liberally by courts addressing the issue of frivolity. Id.
A complaint is frivolous when it “lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact.” Neitzke
v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A claim lacks such arguable basis in law when it is
“based on an indisputably meritless legal theory.” Id. at 327. A claim lacks an arguable basis
in fact where it fails to state a claim as to which relief might be granted. Black v. Warren,
134 F.3d 732, 733–34 (5th Cir. 1998) (noting that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and Rule
12(b)(6) use the same language). Pursuant to the express language of Section 1915(e),
dismissal of claim which evidences no chance of success is appropriate. Booker, supra.
Although courts generally permit a pro se litigant to amend a complaint, amendment is not
warranted where it appears that the litigant has stated his “best case.” Brewster v. Dretke,
587 F.3d 764, 768 (quoting Bazrowx v. Scott, 136 F.3d 1053, 1054 (5th Cir. 1998)).
Analysis
A. Prescription

As explained in the Report and Recommendation issued by the undersigned on August
14, 2024, Thomas’s claims in this suit are asserted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which
borrows the forum state’s general or residual statute of limitations for personal injury claims.
Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235 (1989). Accordingly, Thomas’s claims are subject to Louisiana’s
liberative prescriptive period, found in LA. CIV. CODE ANN. art. 3492.1 Brown v. Pouncy, 93
F.4th 331 (5th Cir. 2024).
Thomas’s Complaint alleges that he was removed from his home on or about August
15, 2018. [Doc. 1 at p. 4]. Accordingly, all claims arising from this alleged tortious behavior
accrued no later than August 15, 2018 and, pursuant to former LA. CIV. CODE ANN. art. 3492,
prescribed no later than August 15, 2019. Thomas filed this suit on August 10, 2023, nearly
four years after his claims had prescribed under this provision. Similarly, all claims asserted
under LA. CIV. CODE ANN. arts. 2315, 2322, and 2317.1 are subject to one-year liberative
prescription under former Article 3492. State ex rel. Tureau v. BEPCO, L.P., 351 So. 3d 297,

1 At the time of the harm alleged and the filing of this suit, LA. CIV. CODE ANN. art. 3492 provided
that “[d]elictual action are subject to a liberative prescription of one year…” Effective July 1, 2024,
Article 3492 was repealed to provide for a two-year liberative prescription for delictual actions under
new Article 3493.11. 2024 La. Sess. Law Serv. Act 423 (H.B. 315) (West). Section 3 of Act 423 specifies
that it “shall be given prospective application only and shall apply to delictual actions arising after the
effective date of this Act.” Accordingly, this Court will apply one-year liberative prescription under
former article 3492 in its analysis.
304 (La. 2022) (citing Richard v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 559 F.3d 341, 347 (5th Cir. 2009);
Saul Litvinoff, Obligations § 5.2, in 6 LOUISIANA CIVIL LAW TREATISE (2d. ed. 1999)).
Considering the foregoing, the undersigned will recommend dismissal of all remaining claims
in this matter as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
B. 42 U.S.C. §1988
Thomas also brings claims against the remaining defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1988. Section 1988 empowers courts to award attorney fees to prevailing parties in civil

rights cases. Considering the prescription of Thomas’s claims as explained above, his claims
under Section 1988 should also be dismissed, as he is not properly considered a “prevailing
party” in this matter. Sanchez v. City of Austin, 774 F.3d 873, 878–79 (5th Cir. 2014)
(internal citations omitted). The undersigned will recommend all claims asserted under 42
U.S.C. § 1988 be dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
C. Amendment
As cited above, where a pro se litigant has stated his best case, the reviewing court is
not required to grant leave to amend the complaint. For the reasons stated above, the
undersigned will recommend dismissal without leave to amend, as Thomas has stated his
best case regarding the claims at issue. Marucci Sports, L.L.C. v. Nat’ l Collegiate Athletic
Ass’ n, 751 F.3d 368, 378 (5th Cir. 2014) (citing Briggs v. Miss., 331 F.3d 499, 508 (5th Cir.
2003) (leave to amend properly denied where amendment would be futile).
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed herein, this Court recommends that all remaining claims
by Plaintiff Billy R. Thomas, acting pro se and in forma pauperis herein, be DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and that leave to
amend be denied as futile.
Under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), parties
aggrieved by this recommendation have fourteen days from service of this report and
recommendation to file specific, written objections with the Clerk of Court. A party may
respond to another party’s objections within fourteen days after being served with of a copy
of any objections or responses to the district judge at the time of filing.
Failure to file written objections to the proposed factual findings and/or the proposed
legal conclusions reflected in the report and recommendation within fourteen days following
the date of its service, or within the time frame authorized by Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b), shall bar
an aggrieved party from attacking either the factual findings or the legal conclusions
accepted by the district court, except upon grounds of plain error.
THUS DONE in Chambers, Lafayette, Louisiana on this 12th day of May, 2026.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11357586. Public record. Not legal advice.