Celestine v. 27th Jud Dist Court, et al

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
July 25, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-30866
Summary Calendar
BOBBY CELESTINE, also known as Bobbie L. Celestine,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT; DISTRICT ATTORNEY 27TH
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 02-CV-10
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Bobby Celestine appeals from the district court’s dismissal
of his complaint for declaratory relief. Celestine seeks a
declaratory judgment that his 1964 Louisiana state court
conviction for simple burglary was unconstitutional.
A state may waive its defense of sovereign immunity, Wis.
Dep’t of Corr. v. Schacht, 524 U.S. 381, 389 (1998), but the 27th

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 02-30866
-2-
Judicial District Court did not do so. Celestine’s complaint
against the 27th Judicial District Court does not fall within the
exception created by Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 159-60 (1908).
See Aguilar v. Tex. Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 160 F.3d 1052,
1054 (5th Cir. 1998).
Celestine may not obtain a declaratory judgment invalidating
his burglary conviction. Johnson v. Onion, 761 F.2d 224, 226
(5th Cir. 1985). Furthermore, he has failed to state a
cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Celestine’s complaint
falls within the purview of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-
87 (1994), even though his sentence has expired and he is not
seeking damages. See Randell v. Johnson, 227 F.3d 300, 301 (5th
Cir. 2000); Clarke v. Stalder, 154 F.3d 186, 189 (5th Cir. 1998).
Celestine’s proposed amendment to name the state judge who
handled his conviction as a defendant is baseless because the
judge is protected by absolute immunity. See Malina v. Gonzales,
994 F.2d 1121, 1124-25 (5th Cir. 1993).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --