IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-30257

Summary Calendar

BRANDON SCOTT LAVERGNE,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

LOUISIANA STATE POLICE,

Defendant-Appellee

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 6:13-CV-2189

Before PRADO, OWEN, and GRAVES, 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 State Police. The district court dismissed the complaint as barred 

by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), and, alternatively, for failure to 

* 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

October 24, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-30257 Document: 00512814562 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/24/2014
No. 14-30257

state a claim because the Louisiana State Police were immune from suit. 

Lavergne’s state law claims were dismissed without prejudice. 

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).

Lavergne’s motion for leave to file a supplemental brief is GRANTED. 

In his briefs, Lavergne again challenges the lawfulness of the actions taken by 

the Louisiana State Police which led to the seizure of his phone and laptop. He 

contends that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint prior to 

service based upon Heck because the charges relating to his arrest by the 

Louisiana State Police, i.e., failing to register as a sex offender, were eventually 

dropped. 

We disagree. Lavergne specifically alleged that the seized items were 

used against him in the murder investigations and in fact that the actions of 

the Louisiana State Police “caused” him to plead to the murder charges 

notwithstanding his innocence. If the district court were to award him 

damages as to any of his claims, it would implicitly call into question the 

validity of his murder convictions. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 487; Penley v. Collin 

County, Tex., 446 F.3d 572, 573 (5th Cir. 2006). In this same vein, any error 

in denying his motions to amend was harmless because the amendments were 

futile in light of the Heck bar. See United States v. Gonzalez, 592 F.3d 675, 681 

(5th Cir. 2009. The district court did not err in dismissing Lavergne’s Heckbarred claims with prejudice. See Johnson v. McElveen, 101 F.3d 423, 424 (5th 

Cir. 1996). To the extent Lavergne raises new claims on appeal, we do not 

address them. See Willard v. Ballard, 466 F.3d 330, 335 (5th Cir. 2006). 

2

 Case: 14-30257 Document: 00512814562 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/24/2014
No. 14-30257

Lavergne’s motion to appoint counsel is DENIED, and the district court’s 

judgment is AFFIRMED. 

3

 Case: 14-30257 Document: 00512814562 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/24/2014