IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-30452

Summary Calendar

BRANDON SCOTT LAVERGNE,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

TRENT BRIGNAC; BRENT COREIL; EDDIE SOILEAU; JUDGE GARY 

ORTEGO, Evangeline Parish; LARRY VIDRINE, former Judge, Evangeline 

Parish; J. CRAIG ORTEGO; RAYMOND LEJEUNE,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 6:14-CV-2835

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In February 2000, Brandon Scott Lavergne, Louisiana prisoner 

# 424229, pleaded guilty to aggravated oral sexual battery and was sentenced 

to ten years of imprisonment. He completed his sentence and now has filed a 

civil rights complaint, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief and monetary 

damages, alleging that the defendants violated his constitutional rights, in 

 

* 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

June 13, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-30452 Document: 00513545773 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/13/2016
No. 15-30452

2

part, by failing to disclose a statement from the victim in his aggravated oral 

sexual battery conviction. The district court dismissed Lavergne’s complaint 

as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, 

determining, in part, that the claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 

U.S. 477 (1994).

A district court is required to dismiss a prisoner's civil rights complaint 

if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief could be 

granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & (ii). We review 

de novo the district court’s dismissal of Lavergne’s § 1983 complaint as 

frivolous and for failure to state a claim under § 1915A and § 1915(e). See 

Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373 (5th Cir. 2005).

Lavergne renews his claims against the defendants and contends that 

the district court erred in dismissing his complaint. Contrary to Lavergne’s 

assertions, he has not overcome the Heck bar. See Sojourner T v. Edwards, 

974 F.2d 27, 30 (5th Cir. 1992). Lavergne’s claims arise out of the aggravated 

oral sexual battery prosecution, and they reflect his view that his prosecution 

and guilty plea for aggravated oral sexual battery was tainted by the 

defendants’ actions. If the district court were to award Lavergne relief as to 

any of these claims, it would implicitly call into question the validity of his 

2000 conviction for aggravated oral sexual battery. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 487. 

Additionally, Heck is applicable even though Lavergne has served the entirety 

of his aggravated oral sexual battery sentence. See Randell v. Johnson, 227 

F.3d 300, 301 (5th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, Lavergne has not shown that the 

district court erred in dismissing his § 1983 complaint.

Lavergne’s appeal lacks an arguable basis in law or fact, and, thus, it is 

DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Lavergne’s motion for leave to 

file a supplemental brief in which he attempts to submit new evidence and 

 Case: 15-30452 Document: 00513545773 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/13/2016
No. 15-30452

3

raise new issues is DENIED. See Theriot v. Parish of Jefferson, 185 F.3d 477, 

491 & n.26 (5th Cir. 1999).

Section 1915(g) provides that 

[i]n no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or 

appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding . . . if 

the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while 

incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an 

action or appeal in a court of the United States that 

was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, 

malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief 

may be granted, unless the prisoner is under 

imminent danger of serious physical injury.

The district court’s dismissal of Lavergne’s complaint counts as one strike, and 

the dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as an additional strike under 

§ 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir.1996). 

Lavergne previously filed § 1983 complaints that the district court dismissed 

as frivolous and for failure to state a claim, which counted as strikes. He now 

has accumulated at least three strikes for purposes of § 1915(g) and is 

prohibited from proceeding in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal that 

is filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under 

imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g). Additionally, we 

WARN Lavergne that future frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive filings 

will result in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal, monetary 

sanctions, and restrictions on his ability to file pleadings in this court or any 

court subject to this court’s jurisdiction. See Coghlan v. Starkey, 852 F.2d 806, 

817 n.21 (5th Cir. 1988). Lavergne is advised to review any pending appeals 

and actions and move to dismiss any that are frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise 

abusive.

APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; MOTION DENIED; 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e) BAR IMPOSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED

 Case: 15-30452 Document: 00513545773 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/13/2016