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.

Foster v. Gardner

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Shreveport Division

January 21, 2015

JACOBY J. FOSTER
v.
DET. GARDNER

SECTION P

Jacoby Javan Foster, Plaintiff, Pro se, Shreveport, LA.

KAREN L. HAYES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE. JUDGE DONALD E. WALTER.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

KAREN L. HAYES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

Pro se plaintiff Jacoby J. Foster, proceeding in forma pauperis, filed the instant civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 13, 2014. Plaintiff is a pre-trial detainee at the Caddo Corrections Center (CCC) and awaits trial on attempted murder charges pending in the First Judicial District Court.[1] He complains that his arrest was unlawful, that he is innocent, and that the investigating officer failed to listen to his witnesses. He sued Detective Gardner and Chief Shaw praying for compensatory damages. This matter has been referred to the undersigned for review, report, and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the standing orders of the Court.

Background

The available evidence suggests that plaintiff was booked into the CCC on October 13, 2013 on a charge of attempted second degree murder. He awaits trial on those charges in the First Judicial District Court. He claims that he is innocent and that his arrest, prosecution, and current incarceration are unlawful. He seeks money damages.

Law and Analysis

1. Screening

Plaintiff is a prisoner who has been permitted to proceed in forma pauperis . As a prisoner seeking redress from an officer or employee of a governmental entity, his complaint is subject to preliminary screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. See Martin v. Scott, 156 F.3d 578, 579-80 (5th Cir.1998) (per curiam). Because he is proceeding in forma pauperis, his complaint is also subject to screening under § 1915(e)(2). Both § 1915(e)(2) (B) and § 1915A(b) provide for sua sponte dismissal of the complaint, or any portion thereof, if the Court finds it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.

A complaint is frivolous when it " lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). A claim lacks an arguable basis in law when it is " based on an indisputably meritless legal theory." Id. at 327. A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted when it fails to plead " enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell A. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007); accord Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009).

2. Limitations

Plaintiff claims that he was falsely arrested and imprisoned on October 13, 2013.

The district court is authorized to dismiss a claim as frivolous " it is clear from the face of a complaint filed in forma pauperis that the claims asserted are barred by the applicable statute of limitations." Moore v. McDonald, 30 F.3d 616, 620 (5th Cir. 1994); Gartrell v. Gaylor, 981 F.2d 254, 256 (5th Cir. 1993). A district court may raise the ...


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.