Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Seaton v. Williams

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

November 7, 2014

CHRISTOPHER SEATON,
v.
T. WILLIAMS, et al.

ORDER AND REASONS

NANNETTE JOLIVETTE BROWN, District Judge.

Before the Court is Plaintiff Christopher Seaton's ("Plaintiff") objection[1] to the January 14, 2014, Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge assigned the case.[2] Plaintiff, a state prisoner who was formerly confined to the St. Tammany Parish Prison, filed a complaint against Warden Longino, Sheriff Jack Strain, and prison correctional officers, T. Williams, Lt. Jay Elliot, Capt. Mendy, Capt. Ceadar Holmes and Capt. Wade, (collectively, "Defendants") pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.[3] Plaintiff alleges that he sustained an eye injury after being struck by another inmate.[4] The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court dismiss with prejudice Plaintiff's complaint because it is untimely.[5] Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation arguing that he is entitled to equitable tolling.[6] After reviewing the complaint, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff's objections, the record, and the applicable law, forthe following reasons, the Court will overrule Plaintiff's objections, adopt the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, and dismiss this action with prejudice.

I. Background

A. Factual Background [7]

Plaintiff alleges that he was struck by inmate, Brandon Deflander, while in the restroom in Pod D600 on Friday, February 3, 2012 between 10:00 a.m. and 11:30 a.m.[8] After the attack, Plaintiff stepped out of the restroom into the dayroom and attempted to get Officer Williams's attention.[9] He alleges that his clothes were full of blood from the hit he sustained directly over his right eye.[10] He asserts that Officer Williams shined his flashlight into the Pod.[11] Officer Williams claims he did not see the attack, but Plaintiff claims this is improbable because there were cameras monitoring the pods.[12] Plaintiff was subsequently brought to an emergency room in Amite, Louisiana, where he was treated for his eye injury.[13] He alleges that he notified all the defendants about the matter via correspondence and in person, to no avail.[14] He now wears prescription glasses for vision enhancement in his right eye.[15] He requests monetary compensation and injunctive relief.[16] 6

B. Report and Recommendation Findings

On January 14, 2014, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed with prejudice as untimely.[17] The Magistrate Judge noted that because there is no federal statute of limitations for § 1983 claims, the district court looks for comparison to the forum state's statute of limitations for personal injury claims.[18] She cited Louisiana Civil Code article 3492, which provides a prescriptive period for personal injury claims of one year from the date of injury or damage.[19] She noted that a § 1983 cause of action accrues when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which forms the basis of his action.[20] She found that Plaintiff had until February 2, 2013, one year from the date of his injury or damage to bring both his § 1983, and any state tort claims, against the defendants.[21] Plaintiff did not sign and date his complaint until December 30, 2013, over 10 months after the limitations period expired.[22] Therefore, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the claims be dismissed as frivolous.[23]

II. Objections

On January 24, 2014, Plaintiff filed an objection to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.[24] He does not object to the Magistrate Judge's finding that his claim was untimely, but he contends that he is entitled to equitable tolling.[25] He argues that "there were several delays in filing his claim that prejudice [sic] his ability to file."[26] He contends that on March 19, 2012 he was transferred from St. Tammany Parish to Rivers Correctional Center, on March 30, 2012 he was transferred to Concardia Parish Prison, on April 8, 2012 he was transferred to Elyan Hunt Correctional Center, on May 21, 2012, he was transferred to B.B. Sixty Rayburn Correctional Center, on November 8, 2012 he was transferred to Harris County Jail in Houston, Texas, and finally on March 8, 2013 he was transferred back to B.B. Sixty Rayburn Correctional Center.[27] He asserts that he had problems obtaining legal materials due to the transfers, and he argues that state and parish officials ignored his requests for materials.[28] He contends that he placed several law library request forms and was placed on several backlog lists.[29] He admits that he had "limited access to law books, " but argues that "pages were missing, and books were damaged so badly they became useless."[30]

III. Standard of Review

A. Review of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation

When designated by a district court to do so, a United States Magistrate Judge may consider prisoner petitions challenging the conditions of confinement and recommend their disposition to the District Court Judge in accordance with the Magistrate Judge's findings of fact and determinations of law.[31] A District Judge "may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition" of a Magistrate Judge on a dispositive matter.[32] The District Judge must "determine de novo any part of the [Report and Recommendation] that has been properly objected to."[33] However, a District Court's review is limited to plain error of parts of the report which are not properly objected to.[34]

B. Standard for Frivolousness

A district court has broad discretion in determining the frivolous nature of a prisoner's complaint.[35] A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact.[36] A claim has no arguable basis in law if "it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory."[37] It lacks a basis in fact if "the facts alleged are clearly baseless."[38] If a court ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.