Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-30369/USCOURTS-ca5-14-30369-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Billy Howard Ezell
Appellee
Brandon Scott Lavergne
Appellant
Charles K. McNeely
Appellee
J. David Painter
Appellee
Jimmie C. Peters
Appellee
Unknown Judge
Appellee
Unknown Judge B. H. E.
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-30369

Summary Calendar

BRANDON SCOTT LAVERGNE,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

JIMMIE C. PETERS; BILLY HOWARD EZELL; J. DAVID PAINTER; 

CHARLES K. MCNEELY; UNKNOWN JUDGE, J. C. P.; UNKNOWN JUDGE 

B. H. E.,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 6:14-CV-185

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Brandon Scott Lavergne, Louisiana prisoner # 424229, pleaded guilty to 

two counts of first degree murder for the murders of Michaela Shunick and 

Lisa Pate. Thereafter, Lavergne filed a civil rights complaint against the 

Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal Judges Jimmie C. Peters, Billy 

Howard Ezell, J. David Painter, and Clerk of Court Charles K. McNeely. The 

* 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

FILED

January 26, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-30369 Document: 00512914223 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/26/2015
No. 14-30369

district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim because the 

defendants were entitled to immunity and because the district court lacked the 

authority to grant the requested injunctive relief against the defendants. 

Additionally, the district court dismissed the claims Lavergne asserted under 

Louisiana state law without prejudice.

On appeal, Lavergne contends that the district court for the Western 

District of Louisiana erred in denying his motions to amend his complaint and 

to transfer his case from the Lafayette Division to the Lake Charles Division. 

This court reviews a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) de novo, applying the same standard that is used to review 

a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Black v. Warren, 

134 F.3d 732, 733–34 (5th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). Questions of whether a 

defendant is entitled to immunity are likewise reviewed de novo. Hale v. King, 

642 F.3d 492, 497 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam).

Lavergne has not challenged the district court’s determination that 

Lavergne’s claims against the defendants fail to state a claim because the 

defendants are entitled to immunity, that the district court did not have the 

authority to grant Lavergne’s requested injunctive relief, that the district court 

should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Lavergne’s state law 

claims, or that allowing Lavergne to amend his complaint would be futile 

because the defendants are entitled to immunity. Although pro se briefs are 

liberally construed, even pro se litigants must brief arguments in order to 

preserve them. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Lavergne 

has therefore failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in 

denying Lavergne’s motion to amend his complaint. Leal v. McHugh, 731 F.3d 

405, 417 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Gonzalez, 592 F.3d 675, 681 (5th Cir. 

2009) (per curiam). Additionally, Lavergne’s unsupported assertion that venue 

2

Case: 14-30369 Document: 00512914223 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/26/2015
No. 14-30369

was improper in the Lafayette Division is insufficient to show that the district 

court abused its discretion in denying his motion to transfer. See Broussard v. 

State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 523 F.3d 618, 631 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. 

Smith-Bowman, 76 F.3d 634, 637 (5th Cir. 1996). To the extent Lavergne 

raises new claims on appeal, we do not address them. See Williams v. Ballard, 

466 F.3d 330, 335 (5th Cir. 2006) (per curiam).

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

3

Case: 14-30369 Document: 00512914223 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/26/2015