Hunter David Cassidy v. Lafayette City Marshals, et al.

Summary

This Report and Recommendation addresses a pro se civil rights action filed by Hunter David Cassidy against Lafayette City Marshals and related defendants in the Western District of Louisiana. The magistrate judge recommends dismissing the plaintiff’s RICO, FOIA, criminal civil-rights, trademark, duplicative § 1983, and fraud claims as frivolous or failing to state a claim, and recommends dismissing several defendants, including the Lafayette City Marshal’s Office. The recommendation was signed on December 18, 2025, and allows fourteen days for written objections.

Holdings

1. Cassidy's RICO allegations failed to state a civil RICO claim because he did not allege an injury to business or property, racketeering activity or a pattern of racketeering activity, or a qualifying enterprise or conspiracy.
2. Cassidy's FOIA claim against the Lafayette City Marshal's Office failed because FOIA applies to federal agencies and does not provide a claim against state or municipal agencies.
3. Sections 241 and 242 are criminal statutes and do not provide a private right of action.
4. Cassidy's allegations that defendants used his name in official documents did not state a trademark-infringement claim because he did not allege a legally protectable mark used in a manner likely to cause consumer confusion as to source, affiliation, or sponsorship.
5. The claims for damages against deputy clerks Kelly Mouisset and Myke M. Leblanc were subject to absolute immunity for acts specifically required under court order or performed at a judge's discretion.
6. Cassidy failed to state a § 1983 claim against Reggie Thomas in his supervisory capacity because he did not allege Thomas's personal involvement or implementation of an unconstitutional policy causing the asserted injuries.
7. The Lafayette City Marshal's Office was not a proper defendant because it lacked a separate legal or jural existence under Louisiana law.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Cassidy's RICO allegations stated a civil RICO claim.
2. Whether Cassidy could pursue a FOIA claim against the Lafayette City Marshal's Office for records relating to his arrest.
3. Whether 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242 provide private rights of action.
4. Whether the amended complaint stated a Lanham Act trademark-infringement claim based on defendants' use of Cassidy's name in official documents.
5. Whether the amended § 1983 and fraud claims stated legally cognizable claims.
6. Whether claims against the deputy clerks, the supervisory marshal, and the Lafayette City Marshal's Office should be dismissed based on immunity, lack of personal involvement, or lack of separate legal existence.

Disposition

other