United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lake Charles Division
KATHLEEN KAY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
the court is the amended civil rights complaint [doc. 8]
filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by plaintiff David
Wayne Hungerford, who is proceeding pro se and
in forma pauperis in this matter. Hungerford is
currently incarcerated at the Calcasieu Correctional Center
(“CCC”) as a pretrial detainee. Doc. 1, p. 3.
However, he raises claims relating to his arrest by officers
of the Lake Charles Police Department (“LCPD”).
alleges that, on May 2, 2017, he was beaten by officers of
the LCPD. Doc. 8, p. 3. From this beating, he maintains that
he suffered broken bones but received no medical treatment
from the LCPD officers and instead “sat [four] or more
[hours] before they brought me to [CCC] and glued my cheek
together.” Doc. 8, p. 3. He states that some
unidentified person told him that he did not suffer any
broken bones, but he maintains that he could prove otherwise
if given X-rays. Id.
now brings suit against the LCPD, the City of Lake Charles,
the Mayor of the City of Lake Charles, and the Chief of
Police of the City of Lake Charles. Id.; doc. 1, pp.
1, 4. In relief he seeks “[t]o have the officer
reprimanded and to receive a settlement between $5, 000.00 to
$500, 000.00” for the alleged police brutality. Doc. 8,
p. 4. He also requests that he not face any repercussions for
suing the LCPD. Id.
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. §
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).
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).