United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana
KATHLEEN KAY MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
the court is a civil rights complaint [doc. 1] filed pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by plaintiff Mayson John, who is
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in
this matter. John is a pretrial detainee and is currently
incarcerated at Concordia Parish Correctional Facility
(“CPCF”) in Ferriday, Louisiana. However, his
complaint relate at least in part to events that occurred
while he was incarcerated at the Jefferson Davis Parish Jail
(“JDPJ”) in Jennings, Louisiana.
complaint, John alleges that Warden Dustin Locke of the JDPJ
is retaliating against him for another civil rights suit he
filed in this court against JDPJ personnel. Specifically,
John alleges that Locke taunts him and behaves vindictively
whenever he (John) goes to court. Doc. 1, p. 3. He also
claims that, on or about July 24, 2017, Locke called Lance
Moore, warden at CPCF, and threatened to “pull the
entire Jeff Davis Parish pretrial contract” unless
Moore revoked John's trustee status. Id.
also complains of the actions of Robert Sheffield, whom he
alleges is his court-appointed attorney but also, somehow, an
employee of the Jefferson Davis Parish District
Attorney's Office. See Id. at 3-4. John alleges
that Sheffield discussed his case with him in front of
others, then became angry and refused to speak with John any
further when John asked him to stop. Id. at 4. John
states that he reported Sheffield's behavior to his
office's personnel and that “she said that she
would have it dealt with, but did not.” Id. He
also maintains that Sheffield has made errors in his case,
namely by asking to redo a DNA case when John had believed
that the original test results could be suppressed,
benefiting his case, “due to it being an incomplete
has now filed this suit against Locke, Sheffield, the JDPJ
and Jefferson Davis Parish Sheriff's Office, and the
Jefferson Davis Parish District Attorney's Office.
Id. at 3, 5. He seeks damages as well as injunctive
relief in the form of having all criminal charges dismissed
with prejudice and Sheffield and Locke fired. Id. He
also sent a letter to the clerk of court, inquiring about
“my protection order [that] I asked about” and
alleging that Locke “will screw me over and I will get
hurt if I'm housed at his jail.” Doc. 6.
Accordingly, he appears to seek preliminary injunctive relief
in the form of a court order that he remain at CPCF or be
transferred to the Elton City Jail. 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 the 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).