James v. Thomas

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CHARLEY JAMES CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 25-2374
CAROLYN THOMAS, ET AL. 	SECTION “H”(1)
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Charley James, a state inmate incarcerated at Rayburn Correctional Center, filed
this pro se and in forma pauperis federal civil rights case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. James
sued A.R.D.C. Supervisor Carolyn Thomas and Mrs. Ellington, a “social worker/records”
employee.1 James takes issue with the February 2025 recalculation of his release date under Act
150.2 According to his complaint and attached exhibits, in approximately 2013, James was
sentenced for first degree robbery and his release date was calculated under Act 1099, which allows
for credit for good time.3 In February 2025, James’s master prison record was audited and, as he
has a prior conviction for armed robbery in 1986, his release date was recalculated under Act 150.4
In essence, James claims his sentence was incorrectly calculated in February 2025. He seeks an
order from the Court directing that he be entitled to good time under Act 1099, which would result
in him being eligible for an earlier release date. James also seeks compensatory damages.5
1 Rec. Doc. 1.
2 Louisiana Acts 1994, No. 150, § 1, amended La. Rev. Stat. § 15:571.3 to provide that diminution of sentence (good
time) was not allowed to inmates convicted a second time of a crime of violence as defined by La. Rev. Stat. § 14:2(B).
See Johnson v. Department of Public Safety, No. 14-0335, 2014 WL 5800470, at *1, n.1 (La. App. 1st Cir. Nov. 7,
2014).
3 Rec. Doc. 1 at 3, 9, 11. Louisiana Acts 1995, No. 1099, § 1, amended La. Rev. Stat. § 15:571.3 to provide that an
offender convicted for a crime of violence for the first time could earn diminution of sentence at a rate of three days
for every seventeen days served in actual custody. See Thomas v. Louisiana Dep’t of Public Safety & Corrs., 354
So.3d 81, 82 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2022).
4 Id. at 3, 9, 11, 13.
5 Id. at 5.
Case 2:25-cv-02374-JTM Document 10 Filed 01/26/26 Page 1 of 5

2
On 	December 	22, 	2025, 	the 	undersigned 	issued 	a 	report 	and 	recommendation
recommending that James’s federal civil rights claims against defendants Carolyn Thomas and
Mrs. Ellington be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, § 1915(e), § 1915A, and 42 U.S.C. §
1997e as frivolous and otherwise for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted.6
Alternatively, the Court recommended that the claims against defendants in their official capacities
be dismissed without prejudice on the basis of Eleventh Amendment immunity and that the claims
be dismissed as Heck barred.7
On December 31, 2025, the Court received James’s untitled motion in which he sought
leave to amend his complaint.8 In that filing, James clarified that he is suing the defendants in both
their official and individual capacities and seeks monetary damages.9 On January 7, 2026, the
District Judge granted the motion and referred the matter to the undersigned for screening and a
report and recommendation to address James’s claims against defendants in their individual and
official capacities.10 For the reasons below and those previously explained in the original Report
and Recommendation, James’s claims against defendants in their official and individual capacities
should be dismissed as frivolous, failing to state a claim on which relief may be granted, seeking
monetary damages against defendants who are immune from such relief, and/or Heck barred.
Initially, to the extent that James challenges the duration of his imprisonment and seeks a
speedier release, as previously explained in the original Report and Recommendation,11 such relief
cannot be granted in a civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A § 1983 civil
rights proceeding simply is not the appropriate means of pursuing release from incarceration.
6 Rec. Doc. 6 at 3-5, 7.
7 Id. at 5-7.
8 Rec. Doc. 7.
9 Id. at 1.
10 Rec. Doc. 9.
11 Rec Doc. 6 at 4-5.
Case 2:25-cv-02374-JTM Document 10 Filed 01/26/26 Page 2 of 5

3
Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973);
Hernandez v. Livingston, 495 F. App’x 414, 417 (5th Cir. 2012). Instead, James must file a petition
for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 after completely exhausting his state court
remedies.12 Preiser, 411 U.S. at 500; Gray v. White, 18 F.4th 463, 467 (5th Cir. 2021) (“plaintiffs
convicted of crimes may not use § 1983 to challenge the validity or duration of their sentences.”)
(citing Muhammad, 540 U.S. at 750); Ojo v. INS, 106 F.3d 680, 683 (5th Cir.1997) (holding that
§ 2241 is the proper vehicle to attack the manner in which a sentence is being executed); Edge v.
Stalder, 83 F. App’x 648 (5th Cir. 2003) (exhaustion of state remedies is required in habeas corpus
actions brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241).
For the same reasons and based upon the same caselaw citations in the original Report and
Recommendation,13 the Court finds that James is not entitled to monetary damages against the
defendants in their official capacities as they are state employees who (1) are not considered
“persons” subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and (2) are entitled to Eleventh Amendment
immunity.
Finally, James’s individual-capacity claims against defendants are barred by Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Claims which are barred by Heck are legally frivolous. Kingery
v. Hale, 73 F. App’x 755 (5th Cir. 2003); Hamilton v. Lyons, 74 F.3d 99, 102 (5th Cir. 1996).Were
this Court to determine that James is entitled to a declaratory judgment and monetary damages,
this would necessarily imply the invalidity of James’s sentence as calculated. Because James has
12 As explained in the original Report and Recommendation, it would be futile to construe the complaint in part as a
habeas corpus petition because James has not demonstrated that he has exhausted his state court remedies pursuant to
La. Rev. Stat. §§ 15:571.15 and 15:1177. Rec. Doc. 6 at n.8. It appears that James has not sought review of the matter
by the state district court or the intermediary court. Specifically, on August 22, 2025, the Louisiana Supreme Court
denied James’s petition for supervisory writ, finding that he “ha[d] not demonstrated that he sought review in the
court(s) below before filing in this Court nor shown the ‘extraordinary circumstances’ that would justify bypassing
that level of review. La.S.Ct.R. X, § 5(b); see also R.S. 15:1171, et seq.” James v. Louisiana Dep’t of Public Safety
& Corrs., 420 So. 3d 12 (La. 2025).
13 Rec. Doc. 6 at 5.
Case 2:25-cv-02374-JTM Document 10 Filed 01/26/26 Page 3 of 5

4
not demonstrated that his term of confinement has been invalidated or called into question either
in a state proceeding or through federal habeas corpus, his claims for monetary damages and
declaratory relief against defendants in their individual capacities must be dismissed. Dixson v.
Louisiana DOC, No. 14-226–P, 2014 WL 3587260, at *1–2 (W.D. La. July 18, 2014) (dismissing
claims for monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory relief for allegedly unconstitutional
sentence as Heck barred where plaintiff sought to have his sentence calculated under Act 1099
rather than Act 150).
RECOMMENDATION
For all the reasons set out in the original and supplemental Reports and Recommendations,
it is again RECOMMENDED that Charley James’s federal civil rights claims against defendants
Carolyn Thomas and Mrs. Ellington be DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, § 1915(e), §
1915A, and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e as frivolous and otherwise for failure to state a claim for which relief
can be granted.
ALTERNATIVELY, it is RECOMMENDED that the claims against defendants Thomas
and Ellington in their individual capacities be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE to their being
asserted until the Heck conditions are met.
ALTERNATIVELY, it is RECOMMENDED that the claims against defendants Thomas
and Ellington in their official capacities be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE on the basis
of Eleventh Amendment immunity.14
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
14 Eleventh Amendment immunity deprives the district court of jurisdiction and, therefore, dismissal of claims on that
basis must be without prejudice. Anderson v. Jackson State University, 675 F. App’x 461, 464 (5th Cir. 2017)
(citations omitted).
Case 2:25-cv-02374-JTM Document 10 Filed 01/26/26 Page 4 of 5

5
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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d
1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
New Orleans, Louisiana this 26th day of January, 2026.
_______________________________________
JANIS VAN MEERVELD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-02374-JTM Document 10 Filed 01/26/26 Page 5 of 5