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.

Sennet v. St. Martin Parish Correctional Facility

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lafayette Division

January 9, 2018

DEMARQUS D. SENNET
v.
ST. MARTIN PARISH CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, et al.

         SECTION P

          MEMORANDUM ORDER

          PATRICK J. HANNA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         The plaintiff, DeMarqus D. Sennet, filed this pro se and in forma pauperis complaint on September 1, 2017, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. This matter has been referred to the undersigned for review, report, and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 6');">636');">6 and the standing orders of the Court.

         Background

         Plaintiff's original complaint [Rec. Doc. 6');">6] and Amended Complaint [Rec. Doc. 10] make various allegations against numerous defendants in connection with his incarceration in both the St. Martin Parish Correctional Facility (SMPCF) and the Jefferson County (Texas) Correctional Facility (JCCF).

         With respect to the conditions of confinement, plaintiff makes the following allegations: (1) wasn't allowed to shower regularly; (2) heater was turned on so he would become dehydrated; (3) he was locked in a cell with no running water or toilet and forced to urinate on the floor; (4) was forced to sleep on the floor; (5) was put in overcrowded cells; (6');">6) was never let out on rooftop; (7) forced to shower in uncomfortable conditions;(8) he wasn't given a towel or toilet paper; and (9) he was not allowed to use the telephone.

         He also makes claims that nurses and prison officials did not respond to his medical requests or grievances. However, he also references being sent to the hospital after he was jumped by two D.O.C. inmates [Rec. Doc. 6');">6, p. 6');">6], and for stomach issues on another occasion. [Rec. Doc. 10, p.2].

         Plaintiff makes several claims of prison officials speaking poorly of him, that they “slandered' his name with inmates, told inmates he was a homosexual, portrayed him as a child molester/pedophile, had “federal inmates and DOC inmates form (sic) everywhere and spread my name wrong, ” “black balled [him] across the country, ” and portrayed him as bipolar/schizophrenic. [Rec. Doc. 6');">6, pp. 6');">6-7]

         He further makes allegations of being denied access to court by prison officials who would not give him mail and/or court documents.

         Finally, a considerable part of plaintiff's complaint consists of allegations against the defendants similar to the following: Defendants put cleaning supplies in the water forcing him to drink out of toilet, put blood thinners and sleeping pills in his food causing gastric problems for life, tampered with his trays causing extreme weight loss, would prematurely hang up phone calls so he would burn money on calls, would allow kitchen inmates to play with his food, causing his stomach to severely bleed every time he defecated, deputies would give inmates razors to try to cause him serious bodily harm, they tried to get inmates to rape him in a cell without cameras, put laxatives in his food so he couldn't gain weight, withheld toothpaste after he would notice that they were tampered with, put cleaning supplies in his peanut butter, poison in his red beans and rice, implanted a chip in his face, got an inmate with an STD to try and give him an STD, posted fake images of him on Facebook, put blood in his water and food, threatened a maximum sentence to anyone who helped plaintiff, “set things up so Aryan Nation could brutally harm” him, set things up so that when he went to church inmates would kill him with weapons that jailors used.

         With respect to certain claims, the Court needs additional detail, as discussed below.

         LAW AND ANALYSIS

         1. Rule 8 Considerations

         Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does not require explicit detail, but it does require a plaintiff to allege specific facts which support the conclusion that his constitutional rights were violated by each person who is named as defendant. This conclusion ...


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.