United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Alexandria Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
H.L. Perez-Montes United States Magistrate Judge.
the Court is a civil rights complaint (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
filed by pro se Plaintiff Dekarius Germane Edwards (#453433)
(“Edwards”). Edwards was granted leave to proceed
in forma pauperis. (Doc. 4). Edwards is being
detained at the Natchitoches Parish Detention Center
(“NPDC”) in Natchitoches, Louisiana. Edwards
complains NPDC officials failed to protect him from an attack
by other inmates. Edwards names as defendants the 10 inmates
that attacked him, as well as nine NPDC officers. (Doc. 1, p.
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.
alleges he notified Lt. Sines, Sgt. Metoyer, Officer Gay,
Officer Jordan, Sgt. Ables, Officer Scott, Officer Bernstine,
Officer Earp, and Officer Stetson that he needed to move out
of his assigned dorm because he was going to be attacked by a
group of 10-15 inmates. Edwards claims his requests were
ignored. Edwards's sister also called NPDC to notify
officers of the impending attack. (Doc. 1, p. 3).
day of his attack, Edwards and another inmate “stood at
the window in the dorm . . . hitting the window and begging
the officers to get [Edwards and the other inmate] out of the
dorm.” (Doc. 1, p. 12). After banging on the window for
an hour, Lt. Sines called Edwards out into the hall. Edwards
informed Lt. Sines again that he was going to be attacked by
10-15 inmates. Lt. Sines replied there was nowhere to put
Edwards and the other inmate, and Edwards would not be moved
unless a “Code Blue” was called. (Doc. 1, p. 12).
Lt. Sines ordered Edwards to return to the dorm. (Doc. 1, p.
12). Shortly thereafter, Edwards and the other inmate were
attacked by 10-15 inmates. (Doc. 1, p. 12). The assailants
kicked Edwards and hit him with socks containing padlocks.
(Doc. 1, p. 12).
was brought to the medical department after the attack.
Edwards complained of bruises to the head and possible broken
ribs, but he was not provided medical care. Edwards was
written up for aggravated fighting and placed in lockdown.
Eventually, the disciplinary charge was dropped.
Law and Analysis
Edwards's complaint is subject to screening under
§§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A.
is a prisoner who has been allowed to proceed in forma
pauperis. As a prisoner seeking redress from an officer
or employee of a governmental entity, Edwards's 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, Edwards's 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.
Edwards cannot state a § 1983 claim against other
names ten inmate assailants as defendants, and asks that they
be criminally prosecuted. To state a claim under § 1983,
a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by
the Constitution and laws of the United States. The plaintiff
must also show that the alleged deprivation was committed by
a person acting under color of state law. See West v.
Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988) (citations omitted). A
plaintiff may satisfy the “under color of state
law” requirement of § 1983 by proving that the
conduct causing the deprivation is fairly attributable to the
state. See Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922,
937 (1982). “Fair attribution” requires that: (1)
the deprivation is caused by the exercise of a state-created
right or privilege, by a state-imposed rule of conduct, or by
a person for whom the state is responsible; and (2) the party
charged with the deprivation may be fairly described as a
state actor. Id.
allegations do not indicate that the 10 inmate assailants
were acting under color of state law at any time. Because the
inmates are not state actors, the ...