United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Monroe Division
ROBERT G. JAMES
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
L. HAYES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
plaintiff, Cody White, filed this pro se and in
forma pauperis complaint on August 18, 2017, pursuant to
42 U.S.C. §1983, while an inmate at the Franklin Parish
Detention Center (FPDC). His complaint alleges constitutional
violations against defendants Aaron Ross, Chad Lee, Sheriff
Bobby and Nicole Fontenno. He seeks compensatory damages.
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.
For the following reasons it is recommended that the
complaint be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as
frivolous and for failing to state a claim for which relief
may be granted.
of the Case
11, 2017, plaintiff was put in holding cell 304 at the FPDC.
He complains that it is “so nasty it smells of urine,
mold and mildew.” He has complained to Sgt. Aaron Ross,
to no avail. He alleges that Warden Chad Lee won't allow
the inmates to clean or go to commissary.
also complains that his sentence is a form of cruel and
unusual punishment. He was sentenced to fifteen years, nine
of that suspended, on unknown charges. He served six years
and was given three years probation, which he then violated.
He asserts that the DOC has him serving fifteen years, as
opposed to the nine that was suspended, because Nicole
Fontenno will not send the Court papers to the DOC.
plaintiff complains that St. Landry Parish Sheriff Bobby
transferred him to Claiborne Parish, away from St. Landry
Parish, to keep him from “doing anything” on his
is a prisoner who has been permitted to proceed in forma
pauperis. As a prisoner seeking redress from an officer
or employee of a governmental entity, his 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, his 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.
complaint is frivolous when it “lacks an arguable basis
either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A claim lacks an
arguable basis in law when it is “based on an
indisputably meritless legal theory.” Id. at
327. A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted when it fails to plead “enough facts to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007); accord Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678