Sencial v. Coll et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
STEVEN SENCIAL CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 24-0874
ARTHUR COLL, ET AL. SECTION “E”(4)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss Case (ECF No. 22) filed by defendants Arthur
Coll and A. Galvez (“Defendants”) seeking dismissal of plaintiff Steven Sencial’s (“Sencial”)
claims asserted in his pro se and in forma pauperis 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The motion and
underlying matter were referred to a United States Magistrate Judge to conduct a hearing, including
an evidentiary hearing, if necessary, and to submit proposed findings and recommendations for
disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), § 1915e(2), and § 1915A, and as
applicable, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1) and(2). Sencial filed an opposition to the motion. ECF No. 30.
Neither party requested oral argument in accordance with Local Rule 78.1 and the Court agrees
that oral argument is unnecessary.
I. Background
a. Factual and Procedural History
Plaintiff Steven Sencial (“Sencial”) filed this pro se and in forma pauperis suit pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Kenner City Police Officers Arthur Coll and A. Galvez, and alleged
victim of his crimes S. Reina, and two eyewitnesses, Bautista Lopez and Rodriguez Cruz, each
named in an individual and official capacity. ECF No. 4, ¶III(B)-(F), at 4; id., ¶II(4)-(7), at 7.
Under a broad reading of his complaint, Sencial alleges that he was arrested without
probable cause on April 6, 2022, by Officers Coll and Galvez for aggravated assault with a firearm
based on the false complaint made by the alleged victim Reina. ECF No. 4 at 8. He also claims
Case 2:24-cv-00874-SM-KWR Document 31 Filed 04/01/26 Page 1 of 9

2
that Lopez and Cruz were witnesses who gave false statements to the Kenner Police through a
translation made by Reina. Id. at 12. He contends that all of the defendants ultimately gave false
testimony to procure an indictment and to create probable cause for the arrest. He also claims that
the bill of information filed July 21, 2023, was based on police testimony that conflicted with the
video evidence which disproved that he had a firearm.
Sencial indicates that he is suing Officer Coll for false arrest, malicious prosecution, and
defamation for lying on his affidavit of arrest dated April 7, 2022, to manufacture probable cause
that did not exist. Id. at 9-10. He is suing Officer Galvez for falsely translating testimony from the
witnesses to procure the arrest and for perjuring himself during the motion to suppress the
identification. As relief, Sencial seeks compensatory and punitive damages under § 1983 and state
law for his loss of liberty and equity, loss of his housing, relationships, and undue stress on his
family to provide him counsel, all because of the libel, slander, and abuse of process by defendants.
Id. at 14.
On June 21, 2024, the undersigned Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendations recommending that Sencial’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against defendants S.
Reina, Batista Lopez, and Rodriguez Cruz be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e) and § 1915A, as frivolous and otherwise for failure to state a claim for which relief can be
granted. ECF No. 8 at 10. It was also recommended that Sencial’s state law claims against
defendants Reina, Lopez, and Cruz be dismissed without prejudice because the Court declined to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims. Id. Pursuant to Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S.
384 (2007), the Court recommended that Sencial’s § 1983 claims and related state law claims of
false arrest, malicious prosecution, and defamation, against defendants Officer Arthur Coll and
Officer A. Galvez be stayed. Id. Sencial filed an objection on July 5, 2024, asserting that a stay on
Case 2:24-cv-00874-SM-KWR Document 31 Filed 04/01/26 Page 2 of 9

3
the claims against Officer Coll and Galvez was not warranted because the State of Louisiana
dismissed the charge of aggravated assault with a weapon on or around March 18, 2024. ECF No.
9 at 1.
The District Judge partially adopted the report and recommendation therefore dismissing
Sencial’s claims against defendants S. Reina, Batista Lopez, and Rodriguez Cruz on March 24,
2025. ECF No. 12. This matter was then referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge to make a
recommendation on whether the stay on the claims against Officer Coll and Galvez should be
lifted.
To better make a recommendation on whether the stay should be lifted, the Court issued
an order asking Sencial to submit official documentation corroborating that his pending charges
involving Officers Coll and Galvez as to his § 1983 and related state law claims were dismissed.
ECF No. 13 at 2. In his response, Sencial stated that the charge of aggravated assault with a firearm,
the charge which forms the basis of his claims against Officers Coll and Galvez, was dismissed or
amended. ECF No. 14 at 1. In support of his assertion, Sencial provided what appeared to be a
docket sheet from the Jefferson Parish Clerk of Court in relation to case number 23-02496. Id. at
46. Given the blurry nature of the submission, the Court interpreted that there was an entry stating
“ABANDONED” next to the four entries of aggravated assault with a firearm. ECF No. 15 at 3.
As such, via Report and Recommendation issued on August 1, 2025, the undersigned
recommended that the stay be lifted on Sencial’s remaining claims. Id. The District Judge
subsequently adopted the Report and Recommendation allowing the stay to be lifted on Sencial’s
§ 1983 claims and related state law claims of false arrest, malicious prosecution, and defamation,
against defendants Officer Arthur Coll and Officer A. Galvez. ECF No. 16. Summons was issued
Case 2:24-cv-00874-SM-KWR Document 31 Filed 04/01/26 Page 3 of 9

4
to Defendants via the U.S. Marshals Service on September 2, 2025, and was returned executed on
January 13, 2026. ECF Nos. 18, 19, 20.
b. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 22)
Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(5), Defendants move to dismiss Sencial’s § 1983 and
related state law claims against them in their individual capacities for improper service under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e). ECF No. 22-1 at 4-5. Defendants assert service was improper
as neither defendant was personally served and the individual who was served at the Kenner Police
Department, Jody Spear, is not an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of
process on behalf of either defendant. Id. Further, Defendants argue that any service executed in
an official capacity was improper under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 4(j)(2) as service of
the suit would need to be executed on the Mayor of Kenner and not at the Kenner Police
Department. Id. at 6.
In addition to their arguments surrounding service, Defendants also included a clear image
of the docket sheet from the Jefferson Parish Clerk of Court relating to Sencial’s criminal
proceedings underlying his § 1983 and related state law claims against Defendants. Id. at 3.
Defendants note that Sencial entered guilty pleas to four counts of aggravated assault with a
firearm and that where the Court interpreted Sencial’s blurry image to read “ABANDONED” next
to each count, the docket actually reads an entry of “A HANDGUN.” Id. at 2-3. Defendants state
that as a result of his guilty plea, Sencial was sentenced to six months in parish prison. Id. at 3.
In his opposition, Sencial asserts that even if the summons were served incorrectly, it would
be unfair to dismiss the suit based on a service error by the U.S. Marshals Service as Sencial has
no authority or control over service. ECF No. 30 at 1. Further, Sencial states that service upon any
employee of a political subdivision of suitable age and discretion is proper. Sencial also states that
Case 2:24-cv-00874-SM-KWR Document 31 Filed 04/01/26 Page 4 of 9

5
the Defendants are guilty of perjury and all claims against them should be granted as a matter of
law. Id. at 2.
II. Standards of Review
a. Statutory Frivolousness Review
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c), the Court is
required to sua sponte dismiss cases filed by prisoners proceeding in forma pauperis upon a
determination that they are frivolous. The Court has broad discretion in determining the frivolous
nature of the complaint. See Cay v. Estelle, 789 F.2d 318, 325 (5th Cir. 1986), modified on other
grounds, Booker v. Koonce, 2 F.3d 114 (5th Cir. 1993). However, the Court may not sua sponte
dismiss an action merely because of questionable legal theories or unlikely factual allegations in
the complaint.
Under this statute, a claim is frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact.
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324-25 (1989); Talib v. Gilley, 138 F.3d 211, 213 (5th Cir.
1998). “A [claim] lacks an arguable basis in law if it is based on an indisputably meritless legal
theory, such as if the complaint alleges the violation of a legal interest which clearly does not
exist.” Harper v. Showers, 174 F.3d 716, 718 (5th Cir. 1999) (quoting Davis v. Scott, 157 F.3d
882, 889 (5th Cir. 1998)). It lacks an arguable factual basis only if the facts alleged are “clearly
baseless,” a category encompassing fanciful, fantastic, and delusional allegations. Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992) (citing Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327-28). Thus, the Court must
determine whether plaintiff’s claims are based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or clearly
baseless factual allegations. Reeves v. Collins, 27 F.3d 174, 176 (5th Cir. 1994); Jackson v.
Vannoy, 49 F.3d 175, 176-77 (5th Cir. 1995); Moore v. Mabus, 976 F.2d 268, 269 (5th Cir. 1992).
Case 2:24-cv-00874-SM-KWR Document 31 Filed 04/01/26 Page 5 of 9

6
b. Motions Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5)
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5), a party may request that the Court
dismiss a case for insufficient service of process. Therefore, a Rule 12(b)(5) motion turns on the
legal sufficiency of the service of process. Quinn v. Miller, 470 Fed. App'x 321, 323 (5th Cir.
2012). Once the validity of service of process has been contested by the defendant, the plaintiff
bears the burden of establishing its validity. Carimi v. Royal Carribean Cruise Line, Inc., 959 F.2d
1344, 1346 (5th Cir. 1992). The district court has “broad discretion” when deciding whether to
dismiss a case for insufficient service. Kreimerman v. Casa Veerkamp, 22 F.3d 634, 645 (5th Cir.
1994). “Even if the plaintiff lacks good cause, the court has discretionary power to extend the time
for service.” Millan v. USAA Gen. Indem. Co., 546 F.3d 321, 325 (5th Cir. 2008).
III. Analysis
Sencial asserts claims of false arrest, malicious prosecution, false testimony, and other
related state law claims of false arrest, malicious prosecution, and defamation against Officers Coll
and Galvez arising from his arrest on April 6, 2022, for aggravated assault with a firearm and the
Officers’ testimony at probable cause and suppression hearings. Sencial essentially challenges the
alleged false reports and false statements by these Officers which he alleges unlawfully fabricated
the probable cause needed to secure his arrest and indictment. As submitted by Defendants, Sencial
pled guilty to four counts of aggravated assault with a firearm in connection with these claims and
was sentenced to six months in parish prison.
When a § 1983 plaintiff asserts claims challenging his criminal proceedings and the basis
for his imprisonment, the Court must consider the Supreme Court’s doctrine espoused in Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), and its progeny, which would bar review of such claims under
certain circumstances.
Case 2:24-cv-00874-SM-KWR Document 31 Filed 04/01/26 Page 6 of 9

7
Pursuant to Heck, a § 1983 plaintiff who has been convicted of a crime cannot recover
damages for an alleged violation of his constitutional rights if that “violation arose from the same
facts attendant to the charge for which he was convicted, unless he proves ‘that his conviction or
sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a
state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court's
issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.’” Bush v. Strain, 513 F.3d 492, 497 (5th Cir. 2008) (quoting
Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87). The Supreme Court clarified that “a state prisoner’s § 1983 action is
barred (absent prior invalidation) - no matter the relief sought (damages or equitable relief), no
matter the target of the prisoner’s suit (state conduct leading to conviction or internal prison
proceedings) - if success in that action would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement
or its duration.” Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-82 (2005) (emphasis in original); see also,
Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997) (extending Heck to bar a prisoner's claim for money
damages and declaratory relief challenging disciplinary hearing procedures). Therefore, Heck
applies to a prisoner’s claims, whether he seeks monetary, injunctive, or declaratory relief.
VanBuren v. Walker, 841 F. App'x 715, 716 (5th Cir. 2021) (recognizing the Heck bar to “any
injunctive relief” tied to petitioner's habeas claim brought under § 1983); Clarke v. Stalder, 154
F.3d 186, 189 (5th Cir. 1998) (en banc) (citing Edwards, 520 U.S. at 641).
Under this reasoning, Sencial cannot pursue his § 1983 claims against Defendants because
his claims arise from the same series of events and facts which underly his criminal conviction.
His claims therefore are frivolous and otherwise fail to state a claim for which relief can be granted.
The claims should be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, § 1915A, and 42
U.S.C. § 1997e, as applicable, until such time as the Heck conditions are met. Johnson v.
McElveen, 101 F.3d 423, 424 (5th Cir. 1996) (Heck dismissal is with prejudice).
Case 2:24-cv-00874-SM-KWR Document 31 Filed 04/01/26 Page 7 of 9

8
As for Sencial’s remaining state law claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), in any civil
action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have
supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in action within such
original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the
United States Constitution. This jurisdiction is “a doctrine of discretion,” and in so deciding, courts
consider “judicial economy, convenience and fairness to litigants,” as well as whether “the state
issues substantially predominate.” United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726-
27 (1966). Ultimately, “[a] district court has ‘wide discretion’ in deciding whether it should retain
jurisdiction over state law claims once all federal claims have been eliminated.” Enochs v.
Lampasas Cnty., 641 F.3d 155, 161 (5th Cir. 2011) (citing Guzzino v. Felterman, 191 F.3d 588,
595 (5th Cir. 1999)).
The Fifth Circuit recognizes that its “general rule is to dismiss state claims when the federal
claims to which they are pendent are dismissed.” Parker & Parsley Petroleum Co. v. Dresser
Indus., 972 F.2d 580, 585 (5th Cir. 1992) (citing Wong v. Stripling, 881 F.2d 200, 204 (5th Cir.
1989)); see Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 351 (1988) (when the federal
claims are eliminated at an “early stage” of the litigation the district court has “a powerful reason
to choose not to continue to exercise jurisdiction”); Gibbs, 383 U.S. at 726 (“Certainly, if the
federal claims are dismissed before trial, even though not insubstantial in a jurisdictional sense,
the state claims should be dismissed as well.”).
For the reasons outlined above, all of Sencial’s § 1983 claims may be dismissed with
prejudice pursuant to § 1915(e) and § 1915A. Under the provisions of § 1367(c), and balancing
the relevant factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity, the Court should
Case 2:24-cv-00874-SM-KWR Document 31 Filed 04/01/26 Page 8 of 9

9
decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss without prejudice Sencial’s state law
false arrest, malicious prosecution, and defamation claims against Defendants.
RECOMMENDATION
It is therefore RECOMMENDED that Steven Sencial’s § 1983 claims against defendants
Officers Arthur Coll and A. Galvez be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915, § 1915A and as applicable, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, as frivolous and otherwise for failure to
state a claim for which relief can be granted until the Heck conditions are met.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Court decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction and DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE Sencial’s state law false arrest, malicious
prosecution, and defamation claims against defendants Officers Arthur Coll and A. Galvez.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 22)
be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as MOOT.
A party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and
recommendation in a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation within fourteen (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 Servs. Auto. Assn., 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir.
1996).1
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 1st day of April, 2026.
_______________________________________
KAREN WELLS ROBY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
1 Douglass referenced the previously applicable ten-day period for the filing of objections. Effective
December 1, 2009, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) was amended to extend the period to fourteen days.
Case 2:24-cv-00874-SM-KWR Document 31 Filed 04/01/26 Page 9 of 9