govinfo:USCOURTS-laed-2_25-cv-02349-2

1 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 
 
KEISHA ANN JACQUET, 
           Plaintiff 
CIVIL ACTION 
 
 
VERSUS 
 
NO.  25-2349 
 
DORRANCE PUBLISHING CO., ET AL., 
           Defendants 
SECTION: “E” (3) 
 
 
ORDER AND REASONS 
 
Before the Court are objections1 filed by Plaintiff Keisha Ann Jacquet (“Plaintiff”) 
to Magistrate Judge Currault’s Report and Recommendation regarding dismissal of  her 
claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be 
granted and for being frivolous .2 After considering the complaint, the record, the 
applicable law, Magistrate Judge Currault’s Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff’s 
objections, and having conducted a de novo review of those portions of the Report and 
Recommendations to which objections are made as required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the 
Court overrules Plaintiff’s objections and approves the Report and Recommendation and 
adopts it as its opinion in this matter.  
Magistrate judges are empowered by statute to preside over certain pretrial matters 
upon appointment by a district judge.3 A district court evaluating a magistrate judge's 
recommendation may adopt those portions of the recommendation to which no specific 
objection is made, as long as those sections are not clearly erroneous.4 However, where a 
party makes “specific, written objections,” the district court must undertake de novo review 
 
1 R. Docs. 7-8.  
2 R. Doc. 6.  
3 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). 
4 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). 
Case 2:25-cv-02349-SM-DPC     Document 9     Filed 04/24/26     Page 1 of 6
2 
of those contested aspects of the report. 5 The district judge may then “accept, reject, or 
modify the recommended decision; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the 
magistrate judge with instructions.”6  
BACKGROUND 
 On November 19, 2025 , Plaintiff filed this  action against Dorrance Publishing 
Company and Xlibris Publishing Company (collectively “Defendants”) .7 Plaintiff alleges 
Defendants failed to pay her the royalties she is  owed for two books she published .8 
Plaintiff asserts a Bivens claim against Defendants, invoking federal question jurisdiction, 
and a breach of contract claim under Louisiana law against Defendants seeking recovery 
of royalties owed to her .9 On November 25, 2025, Magistrate Judge Currault ordered 
Plaintiff to show  cause as to why her Bivens claim should not be dismissed for being 
frivolous and why her breach of contract claim should not be dismissed for failure to state 
a claim upon which relief can be granted.10 On December 3, 2025, Plaintiff filed a response 
to this order, claiming that Defendant Xlibris Publishing  Company’s owner told her the 
company would give her $1,000,000 for her book rights 11—Plaintiff provide d no 
additional factual allegations.  
 On March 9, 2026, Magistrate Judge Currault  issued a Report and 
Recommendation recommending  that this Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Bivens claim with 
prejudice for being frivolous.12 In addition, Judge Currault recommended that this Court 
 
5 Id. 
6 FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). 
7 R. Doc. 1.   
8 Id. at pp. 4-5.  
9 Id. at pp. 3-5. Magistrate Judge Currault construed Plaintiff’s demand for royalties as a breach of contract 
claim under Louisiana law—this Court does, as well. R. Doc. 6 at p. 7. 
10 R. Doc. 3. at p. 7. 
11 R. Doc. 5 at p. 2.  
12 R. Doc. 6 at p. 9.  
Case 2:25-cv-02349-SM-DPC     Document 9     Filed 04/24/26     Page 2 of 6
3 
dismiss Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim  without prejudice for failure to state a claim 
upon which relief may be granted, but with leave for Plaintiff to file an amended complaint 
setting forth the necessary facts to state a plausible claim for relief  within thirty days of 
dismissal.13 On March 16, 2026, Plaintiff filed an Objection to Judge Currault’s Report 
and Recommendation, arguing that Defendants owed her $1,000,000 in royalties for her 
books.14 On March 19, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Supplemental Objection to Judge Currault’s 
Report and Recommendation.15 This Supplemental Objection consists of a copy of a self-
publishing agreement that  Plaintiff allegedly  entered into with Defendant Xlibris 
Publishing Company.16  
While Plaintiff did not file a formal amended complaint, it is clear Plaintiff 
attempted to rectify the deficiencies in her breach of contract claim  by producing the 
agreement under which she seeks payment.17 Accordingly, this Court construes Plaintiff’s 
Supplemental Objection as an amended complaint  adding allegations that she had a 
contract with Xlibris Publishing Company.  
LAW AND ANALYSIS 
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) requires summary dismissal sua sponte should the Court 
determine that a case is frivolous or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 
As Magistrate Judge Currault correctly notes, “[a] claim is ‘frivolous where it lacks an 
arguable basis either in law or in fact.” ’18 In addition, a complaint fails to state a claim 
upon which relief may be granted when it does not contain “sufficient factual matter, 
 
13 Id.  
14 R. Doc. 7.  
15 R. Doc. 8. 
16 R. Doc. 8-1. 
17 Id. 
18 R. Doc. 6 at p.2. (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989)).   
Case 2:25-cv-02349-SM-DPC     Document 9     Filed 04/24/26     Page 3 of 6
4 
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”19 “A claim has facial 
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”20  
I. Plaintiff’s Bivens claim will be dismissed as frivolous. 
The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Currault’s recommendation to dismiss  
plaintiff’s Bivens claim against Defendants as frivolous and without leave to amend . An 
action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics  
addresses constitutional violations by federal government officials in their individual 
capacities.21 “[P]rivate actors [are] not subject to liability  under Bivens for conduct that 
typically falls within the scope of traditional state tort law.”22 In this case, Plaintiff brings 
Bivens claims against private actors —two publishing companies .23 Plaintiff filed no 
objection to the Magistrate Judge’s findings regarding the Bivens claim.24 The Court finds 
the Magistrate Judge’s ruling is not clearly erroneous and the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s 
Bivens claim against private actors as frivolous. 
II. Plaintiff’s objections to dismissal of her breach of contract claim  are 
overruled. 
 
Magistrate Judge Currault recommends dismissal of Plaintiff’ s demand for 
royalties, but with leave for Plaintiff to file an amended complaint .25 In Louisiana, a 
failure to pay book royalites is governed by contract law. 26 Plaintiff’s objections to Judge 
 
19 Rogers v. Boatright, 709 F.3d 403, 407 (5th Cir. 2013). 
20 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).  
21 Affiliated Pro. Home Health Care Agency v. Shalala, 164 F.3d 282, 286 (5th Cir. 1999).   
22 Vela v. Presley, No. 22-40484, 2023 WL 3255010, at *1 (5th Cir.  2023) (citing Minneci v. Pollard , 565 
U.S. 118, 131 (2012)). 
23 R. Doc. 1 at p. 2.  
24 See R. Docs. 7-8.  
25 R. Doc. 6 at p. 9.  
26 See Fonseca v. Pelican Publ’g. Co., 921 So. 2d 1126, 1128 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2006).   
Case 2:25-cv-02349-SM-DPC     Document 9     Filed 04/24/26     Page 4 of 6
5 
Currault’s Report and Recommendation fail to demonstrate that she has a plausible claim 
for breach of contract.  La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 1994  states that “[a]n obligor is liable for 
the damages caused by his failure to perform an obligation.” In order to prevail on a 
breach of contract claim, the plaintiff must first demonstrate that that the obligor 
undertook an obligation to perform.27  
In her Supplemental Objection, Plaintiff provided her self -publishing agreement, 
presumably in an effort to  demonstrate that she had a valid contract with Defendant 
Xlibris Publishing Company. 28 However, the provision  of Plaintiff’s self -publishing 
agreement fail s to demonstrate that Plaintiff has a plausible breach of contract claim. 
Section 3.1(c) of the self -publishing agreement state s that, before the publisher is 
obligated to perform any services, the person using the publisher ’s services must pay in 
full all amounts due to the publisher. 29 Plaintiff does not allege, even after multiple 
chances to  provide additional allegations , that she complied with this contractual 
requirement by paying all amounts due to the publisher.30 As a result, Plaintiff has failed 
to show that Defendants were obligated to perform under the agreement, and Plaintiff 
has failed to state a plausible breach of contract claim. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss 
this claim. 
The Court will not allow further amendment by Plaintiff. Plaintiff filed what the 
Court construes as an amended complaint, providing the self-publishing agreement, but 
making no allegation that she had paid all amounts due to the publisher. The Court finds 
 
27 Walker v. Pelican Publ’g. Co., No. 10-4389, 2011 WL 2976271 at *6 (E.D. La. July 22, 2011) (citing Garco, 
Inc. v. Rob's Cleaning & Powerwash, Inc., 12 So. 3d 386, 391 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2009)).   
28 R. Doc. 8.  
29 R. Doc. 8-1 at p.2.  
30 R. Docs 5, 7. 
Case 2:25-cv-02349-SM-DPC     Document 9     Filed 04/24/26     Page 5 of 6
6 
that allowing any further amendment would be futile.31 
To the extent there are findings by Magistrate Judge Currault that Plaintiff did not 
object to, this Court finds they are not clearly erroneous.  
CONCLUSION 
After conducting a de novo review of the issues raised by Plaintiff’s objections to 
Magistrate Judge Currault’s Report and Recommendations, the Court overrules those 
objections and adopts Magistrate Judge Currault’s Report and Recommendations.32 
IT IS ORDERED that all claims asserted by  Plaintiff be and hereby are 
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 24th day of April, 2026. 
 
_____________________________ _______________  
SUSIE MORGAN 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
 
 
31 Valdery v. Louisiana Workforce Comm’n , No. CIV.A. 15-01547, 2015 WL 5307390, at *1 (E.D. La. Sept. 
10, 2015)(“[w]hen it is apparent, however, that amendment will be futile, dismissal without leave to amend 
is appropriate.”). 
32 R. Doc. 6.  
Case 2:25-cv-02349-SM-DPC     Document 9     Filed 04/24/26     Page 6 of 6

Passage view · GavelSight