IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-30971

Summary Calendar

LAGORDIAN BROWN,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

MICHAEL DOVE; VICTOR PINKNEY; CITY OF NATCHITOCHES,

Defendants-Appellees

Cons. w/ No. 12-30979

LAGORDIAN BROWN,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

ERIC HARRINGTON; DEE ANN HAWTHORNE; STUART WRIGHT; VAN H.

KYZAR; DANNY HALL; BRETT BRUNSON; EDWARD COLBERT, JR.; 10TH

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 1:12-CV-68

USDC No. 1:12-CV-69

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 17, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk
No. 12-30971

c/w No. 12-30979

* 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.

2

Before JONES, DENNIS and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

La Gordian Brown appeals the dismissal, as frivolous, of two 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 actions asserting claims that arose from Brown’s arrest and incarceration

in Natchitoches, Louisiana, starting in January 2010. Brown sued the City of

Natchitoches, a Natchitoches policemen,the Natchitoches police chief,two state

court judges, two state prosecutors and their investigator, two state public

defenders, and Louisiana’s Tenth Judicial District Court. 

The state court judges are absolutely immune from liability for acts done

in their judicial capacities. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9-10 (1991). Brown’s

blanket allegations and assertions of error do not allege any fact that would

show that the judges’ actions were taken outside of their judicial capacity. See

id. at 11-12; Arsenaux v. Roberts, 726 F.2d 1022, 1024 (5th Cir. 1982). 

The state prosecutors and their investigator also enjoy absolute immunity

for actions taken in the presentation of the state’s case, from the professional

evaluation of the evidence, to the initiation of the prosecution, and throughout

the judicial process. See Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 272-73 (1993);

Boyd v. Biggers, 31F.3d 279, 285 (5th Cir. 1994). Brown’s conclusory allegations

of conspiracy and malicious prosecution do not pierce that immunity. See

Biggers, 31 F.3d at 285; Arsenaux, 726 F.2d at 1024. 

The public defenders cannot be sued under § 1983 because they were not

acting under color of state law. See Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42, 53 (1992);

Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 317-18 (1981). Although private parties

can act under color of state law if they corruptly conspire with a judge, Brown’s

assertion of a conspiracy involving his appointed lawyers is not based on any
No. 12-30971

c/w No. 12-30979

3

factual allegation that might tend to show such a conspiracy. See Dennis v.

Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 28-29 (1980); Arsenaux, 726 F.2d at 1024. 

As Brown acknowledges, his claim of false arrest and imprisonment is

facially untimely. See Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 387-90, 97 (2007). He

nonetheless argues that the district court failed to apply state law suspending

the limitation period. Louisiana law does not afford tolling based simply on a

plaintiff’s incarceration. See Lambert v. Toups, 745 So. 2d 730, 733 (La. Ct. App.

1999). Nor may a prisoner escape the running of the limitation period “based

merely upon his inability to attend to his affairs because of his personal illness”

unless that illness arises from the fault of the defendant or unless the plaintiff

has been interdicted due to mental incompetence. Corsey v.State,Through Dept.

of Corrections, 375 So. 2d 1319, 1323 (La. 1979). Brown has failed to allege any

fact that would show he was entitled to the tolling of the limitation period. See

Arsenaux, 726 F.2d at 1024; Corsey, 375 So. 2d at 1323.

Any claims Brown has merely mentioned in his brief or omitted entirely

are waived because he provides no analysis of them, and because he may not

make arguments by adopting previous filings. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d

222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). 

The judgments of the district court dismissing his actions as frivolous are

AFFIRMED. Brown is WARNED that further frivolous litigation will result in

the imposition of monetary sanctions and limits on his access to federal courts.