Foreman v. United States Marshal's Serv.

1

RENATA ROCHELLE FOREMAN v. UNITED STATES MARSHAL'S SERVICE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA CHIEF JUDGE DICK'S WHOLE SECURITY DETAIL, ET AL.

Civil Action No. 23-0817

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

June 7, 2023

SECTION “M” (2)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

DONNA PHILLIPS CURRAULT, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

Plaintiff Renata Rochelle Foreman filed a complaint (ECF No. 6) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge to conduct a hearing including an evidentiary hearing, if necessary, and to submit proposed findings and recommendations for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), § 1915e(2), and § 1915A, and as applicable, 42 U.S.C § 1997e(c)(1) and(2). Upon review of the record, the Court has determined that this matter can be disposed of without an evidentiary hearing.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Foreman is a federal inmate convicted in the Middle District of Louisiana, with Chief Judge Dick presiding over the jury trial, on three counts of wire fraud and three counts of aggravated identity theft for which she was sentenced to serve 111 months in prison.^[1] She is currently incarcerated in FCI Aliceville in Alabama.^[2] Plaintiff filed this pro se and in forma pauperis complaint pursuant 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), against the following defendants: United States Marshal's Service for the Middle District of Louisiana as security detail for Chief Judge Dick; FBI Agents Josh Wilburn, Stephanie Hanson, and Thomas Gohkey; Agent DOL-OIG^[3] Michael Greer; Hon. Shelly D. Dick, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana; and Magistrate Judges Janis Van Meerveld and Karen Wells Roby of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.^[4]

A. Complaint and Supporting Memorandum^[5]

Foreman alleges that U.S. Marshals in the Middle District, as security detail for Chief Judge Dick, contacted officials at FCI Aliceville and had Foreman placed in a Special Housing Unit (“SHU”) with an increased custody level because Plaintiff allegedly made threats toward Chief Judge Dick on November 2, 2022.^[6] She contends that the Marshal's contact was made without first notifying her that she was the target of an investigation.^[7] She remained in SHU with “Camper/Camp Status” until February 10, 2023, even though the Special Investigative Services (“SIS”) purportedly determined in December of 2022 that there was no threat made, only the use of disrespectful language.^[8] Foreman also claims that Agents Wilburn, Gohkey, Hanson, and Greer violated her Fourth Amendment rights when they exceeded the scope of a residential search warrant to seize evidence and committed other unspecified violations during her underlying criminal case.^[9] In her memorandum attached to the complaint, Foreman explains that Agent Wilburn testified at her criminal trial regarding evidence, including her phone, that he and Agents Greer and Gohkey seized from her person or car after executing a search warrant for her mother's “premises/house” in Tangipahoa Parish.^[10] She claims that the February 1, 2017, search was illegal because the warrant was for her mother's house, not her or her car.^[11] She also claims that the warrant amounted to double jeopardy with a venue error because the crime took place in New Orleans.^[12] She further claims that Agents Hanson and Greer interviewed her former wife, Shanita, who confessed to committing the crimes and exonerated Foreman. The agents, however, neglected to charge Shanita, and Foreman's counsel never called Shanita to the stand to exonerate her.

Foreman asserts that Chief Judge Dick allowed Foreman to be convicted and sentenced to 111 months despite her alleged knowledge of the foregoing assertions.^[13] She claims Chief Judge Dick also knew that Foreman was residing in a federal halfway house in New Orleans because of a prior offense. The prosecution would not let the staff members from the halfway house testify on Foreman's behalf. She also claims that Chief Judge Dick should have recused herself because the crime victim was the Judge's former employer, the Louisiana Workforce Commission.^[14]

Plaintiff claims that Magistrate Judge Van Meerveld was chosen by Chief Judge Dick to preside over Foreman's civil case against Chief Judge Dick. She asserts that Magistrate Judge Van Meerveld appeared biased against her due to her actions against Chief Judge Dick.^[15] Foreman felt that Magistrate Judge Van Meerveld argued on behalf of the defendants in that case. Foreman also named Magistrate Judge Roby because she was the judge who issued the search warrant for her mother's home in New Orleans and could attest to its contents.^[16]

Foreman asserts that she has named each defendant in their official and individual capacities. She seeks $10 million in monetary damages for the “recent infraction” and for her wrongful conviction and imprisonment due to defendants' negligence.^[17] She wants Chief Judge Dick to explain whether she instructed, ordered, or requested the Marshals to contact FCI-Aliceville to have her moved to SHU due to threats toward Chief Judge Dick. She also seeks an explanation from Magistrate Judge Roby about the contents of the search warrant for her mother's home when agents had already seized her phone from her person and other items from her car. She also requests that Magistrate Judge Van Meerveld explain why she was “handpicked” by Chief Judge Dick to preside over Foreman's prior case against Chief Judge Dick.

B. Foreman's Civil Rights Suits in the Middle District

1. Foreman v. Dick, Civ. Action 3:22cv0467 (M.D. La.)

On July 11, 2022, Foreman filed a civil rights complaint in the Middle District of Louisiana against Chief Judge Dick, numerous federal agents including Agents Greer, Hanson, and Wilburn, and her criminal defense attorneys.^[18] Relevant here, Foreman alleged in that case that Chief Judge Dick should have recused herself from Foreman's criminal proceedings because of her prior role as Administrative Law Judge for the Louisiana Workforce Commission.^[19] She further asserted that Chief Judge Dick was withholding rulings on post-conviction motions so that the statute of limitation would run before she could file a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.^[20] Foreman also claimed that the federal agents Greer and Wilburn, exceeded the scope of the search warrant for her mother's home when they seized Foreman's phone from her person and searched her car, and Greer and Hanson ignored the confession and exculpatory statements made by Foreman's former spouse, Shanita C. Foreman.^[21] She further asserted that all of the defendants named in that suit conspired with Chief Judge Dick to assure her conviction.^[22]

On August 8, 2022, Chief Judge Dick entered an order indicating that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), all of the district and magistrate judges in the Middle District recused from Foreman's case.^[23] The order also indicated that Senior District Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle and Magistrate Judge Van Meerveld of this Court had been assigned to the case.^[24] In response, Foreman filed a motion seeking Magistrate Judge Van Meerveld's recusal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), challenging her designation over the case.^[25] Foreman referenced a civil case, Ruh v. Superior Home Health Care, Inc., Civ. Action 15-439 (M.D. La.), over which Chief Judge Dick presided and in which Magistrate Judge Van Meerveld had been defense counsel before taking the bench. Foreman claims that Magistrate Judge Van Meerveld's designation was payback for her role as defense counsel in the Ruh case which ended favorably for her client when Chief Judge Dick granted summary judgment. Foreman argued that this appointment was to allow the Magistrate Judge to “pay that favor back” to Chief Judge Dick.^[26] Magistrate Judge Van Meerveld denied the motion, finding no grounds for her recusal.^[27]

In Magistrate Judge van Meerveld's statutory frivolousness review of that case under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Judge Van Meerveld made the following relevant findings:

(1) Foreman's Bivens claims against Chief Judge Dick should be dismissed as frivolous.^[28] Foreman's claims fall outside of the three instances recognized by the Supreme Court as actionable under Bivens.^[29] Even under Bivens, Chief Judge Dick enjoys absolute judicial immunity for her judicial acts regardless of the form of relief sought.^[30] The law does not allow a defendant to use a collateral civil action against a judge to challenge an underlying criminal conviction;^[31] and

(2) Foreman's Bivens claims against the investigating federal agents involved in the alleged unlawful search and seizure of evidence used at her trial are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).^[32]

On November 28, 2022, Judge Lemelle adopted Judge van Meerveld's findings and dismissed with prejudice Foreman's claims, as recommended.^[33] Foreman has since appealed this and other post-judgment rulings to the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.^[34] The appeal remains pending.

2. Foreman v. Wilburn, Civ. Action 3:23-0256 (M.D. La.)

Shortly after filing the instant case in the Easter District of Louisiana, Foreman submitted another § 1983/Bivens complaint to the clerk of the Middle District of Louisiana against Agents Wilburn, Gohkey, Hanson and Greer.^[35] Foreman alleges that the defendants violated her rights by securing her conviction and imprisonment through deliberate indifference during the search and seizure of her person and car.^[36] She claims they also violated her constitutional rights to trial and post-conviction remedies through negligence and the recent “infraction” against her at...