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.

Dregin v. Jackson Parish Correctional Center

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

January 11, 2018

JERRY DREGIN
v.
JACKSON PARISH CORRECTIONAL CENTER, ET AL

         SECTION P

          ROBERT G. JAMES JUDGE

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          KAREN L. HAYES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Pro se plaintiff Jerry Dregin, incarcerated at the Jackson Parish Correctional Center Phase II and proceeding in forma pauperis, filed the instant civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 on October 12, 2017. He names Jackson Parish Correctional Center, Andy Brown, Timothy Ducote, Betty Pullin, Lafayette Parish District Attorney, Michael Hoffpauir, and Dyani Jarosz, seeking his release from custody, compensatory damages and a restraining order. This 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.

         Statement of the Case

         At the time of the filing of this suit, plaintiff was a pre-trial detainee awaiting trial on a charge of possession of a firearm by a felon. He argued that he was being held in custody without an order of the court because the 15th Judicial District Court relieved him of all bond obligations. He has since pled no contest to a charge of attempt to possess firearm by convicted felon, in violation of La. R.S. 14:27(95.1). [Rec. Doc. 7-1, p. 7] He claims that he is being held illegally and seeks release from prison, and damages for pain and suffering, false imprisonment, loss of income and future damages.

         On November 14, 2017, plaintiff filed a request for a restraining order against Jackson Parish Correctional Center and Lasalle Management. [Rec. Doc. 7]

         Law and Analysis

         1. Initial Review

         Plaintiff 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');">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.

         A complaint is frivolous when it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 19');">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 (2009).

         2. Habeas Corpus

         Although plaintiff filed his complaint as a civil rights complaint pursuant to Section 1983, it appears that in addition to money damages he seeks an immediate release from custody. Thus, to the extent that his complaint may be construed as challenging the legality of his confinement or as seeking his immediate release from confinement, such claims must be raised by petition for habeas corpus relief filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241 or 2254. See Carson v. Johnson, 112 F.3d 818');">112 F.3d 818, 820 (5th Cir.1997); Cook v. Texas Dep't of Criminal Justice Transitional Planning Dep't, 166');">37 F.3d 166, 168 (5th Cir.1994); Pugh v. Parish of St. Tammany, 875 F.2d 436, 439 (5th Cir.1989); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 11 U.S. 475');">411 U.S. 475, 500, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973); Serio v. Members of the La. State Board of Pardons, 1 F.2d 1112');">821 F.2d 1112, 1117 (5th Cir.1987). “Challenges to the validity of any confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the province of habeas corpus.” Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750, 124 S.Ct. 1303');">124 S.Ct. 1303, 1304 (2004).

         Therefore, to the extent that plaintiff seeks his immediate release from custody in this civil rights litigation, such claim must be dismissed for failing to state a claim for which relief can be ...


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.