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.

Texada v. Leblanc

United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana

May 6, 2015

MARTIN LUTHER TEXADA (#399339)
v.
JAMES M. LEBLANC, ET AL

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER, Magistrate Judge.

Before the court is the Motion to Dismiss filed by defendant Warden Burl Cain. Record document number 12. The motion is opposed.[1]

Pro se plaintiff, an inmate confined at Louisiana State Penitentiary, Angola, Louisiana, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 against Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections Secretary James M. LeBlanc, Warden Burl Cain, Asst. Warden Robert Butler and Asst. Warden Leslie Dupont. Plaintiff alleged that he was subjected to unconstitutional conditions of confinement and the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his safety, all in violation of his constitutional rights. Plaintiff

I. Factual Allegations

Plaintiff alleged that on September 26, 2013, he filed an administrative grievance complaining that he was experiencing extreme heat in his booth tier cell on Gar Unit. Plaintiff alleged that he experienced 100 degree temperatures in buildings with little ventilation and no fans or air flow.

Plaintiff further alleged that the exercise yard enclosure has no shade and ice water coolers are not available on the exercise yard.

Finally, the plaintiff alleged that tier walkers (who the plaintiff alleged are given the title "Nurse's Aids") are inadequately trained and pose a risk to themselves and the inmates they are assigned to monitor.

II. Applicable Law and Analysis

A. Motion to Dismiss Standard

Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Fed.R.Civ.P.

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court "must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007). "Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007). The Supreme Court expounded upon the Twombly standard, explaining that "[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955 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." Id. It follows that "where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged - but it has not show[n]' - that the pleader is entitled to relief.'" Id. at 1950 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)).

"A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed... and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94, 127 S.Ct. at 2200 (citations omitted). But even a pro se complainant must plead "factual matter" that permits the court to infer "more than the mere possibility of misconduct." Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1950. The court need not accept "a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation, " or "naked assertions [of unlawful misconduct] devoid of further factual enhancement." Id. at 1949-50 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Unconstitutional Conditions of Confinement

The Eighth Amendment prohibits only the wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain. Extelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 97 S.Ct. 285 (1976). Whether the treatment received by an inmate, is characterized as inhumane conditions of confinement, a failure to attend to medical needs, or a combination of both, it is appropriate to apply the "deliberate indifference" ...


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.