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.

Brister v. Parish

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lake Charles Division

December 28, 2017

RAY D. BRISTER DOC # 383050
v.
SHERIFFS DEPT JEFFERSON DAVIS PARISH, ET AL.

         SECTION P

          MEMORANDUM ORDER

          KATHLEEN KAY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Before the court is a civil rights complaint [doc. 5] filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by plaintiff Ray D. Brister, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this matter. Brister is a pretrial detainee and is currently incarcerated at Concordia Parish Correctional Facility (“CPCF”) in Ferriday, Louisiana. See Id. at 2. However, his complaint relates to events that occurred, in part, while he was incarcerated at Jefferson Davis Parish Jail (“JDPJ”) in Jennings, Louisiana. Docs. 1, 5.

         I.

         Background

         In his complaint, Brister states that he began complaining about testicular pain in January 2017, while incarcerated at CPCF. Doc. 5, p. 3. He states that the doctor tried different medications, which did not work, and that he was also sent to see specialists, who told him that surgery was the only treatment. Id. at 3, 5. In May 2017, he was sent back to JDPJ, where he alleges that another doctor said that he required surgery. Id. at 5. However, Brister maintains, JDPJ Warden Locke told him that the Jefferson Davis Parish Police Jury would not pay for the surgery and he would have to wait until he was released. Id. In August 2017, Brister was sent to the hospital, where an ultrasound revealed that he had a cyst on his right testicle and a doctor gave him medication which temporarily alleviated the swelling. Id. at 5-6. Brister claims that JDPJ continued to deny approval for the surgery, stating that it was a pre-existing medical condition dating back to 2005. Id. at 6. Brister states that he continued to file grievances, seeking medical treatment, until he was transferred back to CPCF “because they said I was bothering them so much about my medical problems.” Id. He maintains that his life is in danger at CPCF, where he is now in 24-hour protective custody, as he was originally moved out of that facility for having reported two inmates there to the police. Id. at 5-6. He requests $600, 000 in monetary damages for “pain & suffering and for not caring about my life's situation.” Id. at 6.

         II.

         Law & Analysis

         A. Frivolity Review

         Brister has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this matter. Accordingly, his complaint is subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which provides for sua sponte dismissal of the complaint or any portion thereof if the court determines that it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii).

         A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Gonzalez v. Wyatt, 157 F.3d 1016, 1019 (5th Cir. 1998). A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it is clear the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief. Doe v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 153 F.3d 211, 215 (5th Cir. 1998). When determining whether a complaint is frivolous or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the court must accept plaintiff's allegations as true. Horton v. Cockrell, 70 F.3d 397, 400 (5th Cir. 1995) (frivolity); Bradley v. Puckett, 157 F.3d at 1025 (failure to state a claim).

         B. Section 1983

         Federal law provides a cause of action against any person who, under the color of law, acts to deprive another person of any right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Thus the initial question is whether the plaintiff has alleged that his constitutional rights have been violated. If no constitutional violation has been alleged, there is no cognizable claim that would entitle plaintiff to relief. In order to hold the defendants liable, a plaintiff must allege facts to show (1) that a constitutional right has been violated and (2) that the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; that is, that the defendant was a state actor. West v. Atkins, 108 S.Ct. 2250, 2254-55 (1988).

         C. ...


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.