IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-30224

Summary Calendar

BRANDON SCOTT LAVERGNE,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

MIKE HARSON; OFFICE OF 15TH J.D.C. DISTRICT ATTORNEY,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 6:13-CV-2120

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 Mike 

Harson, the District Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial District, and the Office 

of the District Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial District. The district court 

dismissed the complaint as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), 

* 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: 14-30224 Document: 00512814565 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/24/2014
No. 14-30224

and, alternatively, for failure to state a claim because District Attorney Harson 

was entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity and the District Attorney’s 

Office was not an entity capable of being sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Additionally, the district court dismissed Lavergne’s claims he asserted under 

Louisiana state law 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, Lavernge contends that his claims for libel, slander, malicious 

prosecution, release of false information and statements, and return of 

personal belongings are not grounds to overturn his convictions and, therefore,

that Heck does not apply. We disagree. Lavergne’s claims arise out of the 

appellees’ prosecutions of him for murder. If the district court were to award 

him damages as to any of these claims, it would implicitly call into question 

the validity of his 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, the district 

court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motions to amend his 

complaint because the amendments were futile in light of the Heck bar. Leal 

v. McHugh, 731 F.3d 405, 417 (5th Cir. 2013). The district court did not err in 

dismissing Lavergne’s Heck-barred claims with prejudice. See Johnson v. 

McElveen, 101 F.3d 423, 424 (5th Cir. 1996). 

Finally, 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). His 

motion to appoint counsel is DENIED. 

AFFIRMED. 

2

 Case: 14-30224 Document: 00512814565 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/24/2014