United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Monroe Division
ROBERT G. JAMES
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
L. HAYES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
the court is the civil rights complaint (42 U.S.C.
§1983) of pro se plaintiff Clay Landis Riggs,
filed in forma pauperis on March 28, 2017. Riggs is
a pre-trial detainee at the Jackson Parish Correctional
Center, Jonesboro, Louisiana. Plaintiff names the following
as his defendants: (1) Crawford Jordan; (2) Winn Parish
Sheriffs Department; (3) Jackson Parish Correctional Center;
(4) Herman Casstete; (5) Keith Gates; (6) State of Louisiana; (7)
8th Judicial District Court; (8) Judge
8th Judicial District Court; (9) Timmy Ducote;
(10) Robert Bannon; (11) Jeremy Underwood; (12) Judge Derr;
(13) Steven D. Crews;(14) R. Christopher Nevils; (15) Lt.
Kelley; (16) Sgt. Williams; and (17) Capt. Stewart.
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.
of the Case
12, 2017, Plaintiff's complaint was properly filed. [Rec.
Doc. 6] In this initial complaint, plaintiff asserts that
while housed at the Jonesboro Correctional Center, he
requested indigent stamps and envelopes but was told inmates
must wait 90 days before receiving indigent mail supply. He
also alleges that despite requesting legal material, he was
told that pretrial inmates cannot receive any legal
assistance or legal material at JPCC.
further claims that there are jurisdictional issues related
to the incarceration of his natural body, as there has been
no answering of his Affidavit of Denial of Corporate
Existence filed in the 8th Judicial District Clerk
of Court, nor could a sworn statement to proceed under common
law jurisdiction be produced by the State's Attorney,
Judge, Sheriff's Department or United States Forestry
contends that JPCC inmate banking refused to provide account
information necessary to proceed in forma pauperis in this
alleges that Sheriff Crawford Jordan has stolen personal
property from plaintiff, including a 1998 F250 4x4, a 2013
Harley Davidson motorcycle and a 1985 3-wheeler.
he argues that he is currently being subjected to
“wrongful incarceration by fraud.” Plaintiff
prays for compensatory damages, the return of his personal
property and a restraining order to prevent retaliation.
24, 2017, plaintiff filed his first Supplemental Complaint
[Rec. Doc. 12], in which he makes allegations that Winn
Parish attorneys Justin Keith Gates and Herman Casette were
ineffective in their representation of plaintiff. He also
names Steven D. Crews and R. Christopher Nevils, members of
the Louisiana State Bar, as defendants, but provides no
details regarding his claims against them. He again
reiterates that he is a “living breathing free man of
flesh and blood and should be able to live free of corporate
harassment.” Id. at p. 4.
September 8, 2017, the undersigned conducted an initial
review of this matter and instructed plaintiff to amend his
complaint within 30 days to provide more detailed information
regarding his claims and to cure deficiencies outlined
therein. [Rec. Doc. 20]
September 20, 2017, plaintiff filed an supplemental
complaint. [Rec. Doc. 21] However, he failed to address the
issues outlined in this Court's September 8, 2017 Order.
Rather, he reiterates arguments related to the jurisdiction
of the state court in his criminal matter.
October 6, 2017, plaintiff filed a final supplemental
complaint, pursuant to which he asserts that he sustained
blunt trauma to his eyes due to retaliation for filing the
instant complaint. [Rec. Doc. 22] Plaintiff alleges that on
September 15, 2017, Lt. Kelly, Sgt. Williams and Capt.
Stewart entered L Dorm at JPCC after he requested to speak
with Warden Ducote. Plaintiff asserts that he was standing in
his bunk area with bond hands raised above his head “in
a non threatening manner, ” when he was approached by
the prison officials and shot in the eyes with a G9 Mace Gun,
“paint ball gun, ” by Capt. Stewart. Id.
at p. 2 He received medical treatment, but alleges that his
eyes have still not healed and he suffers from pain and
blurriness. He seeks a restraining order to prevent any
further retaliation. He also requests that all parties
involved submit their affidavit answering his affidavit of
denial of corporate existence “using their Christian or
family name for signature with proof of claims against my
natural body that provides the bases for the use of
and Analysis 1. Initial Review
prisoner sues an officer or employee of a governmental entity
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, the court is obliged to
evaluate the complaint and dismiss it without service of
process, if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary
relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28
U.S.C.1915A; 28 U.S.C.1915(e)(2). Ali v. Higgs, 892
F.2d 438, 440 (5th Cir.1990).
is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact.
Booker v. Koonce, 2 F.3d 114, 115 (5th Cir.1993);
see, Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 112 S.Ct.
1728, 1733, 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992). A civil rights complaint
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it
appears that no relief could be granted under any set of
facts that could be proven consistent with the allegations of
the complaint. Of course, in making this determination, the
court must assume that all of the plaintiff's factual
allegations are true. Bradley v. Puckett, 157 F.3d
1022, 1025 (5th Cir.1998).
hearing need not be conducted for every pro se
complaint. Wilson v. Barrientos, 926 F.2d 480, 483
n. 4 (5th Cir.1991). A district court may dismiss a
prisoner's civil rights complaint as frivolous based upon
the complaint and exhibits alone. Green v. McKaskle,
788 F.2d 1116, 1120 (5th Cir.1986). District courts must
construe in forma pauperis complaints liberally,
but, they are given broad discretion in determining when such
complaints are frivolous. Macias v. Raul A. (Unknown)
Badge No. 153, 23 F.3d 94, 97 (5th Cir.1994).
rights plaintiff must support his claims with specific facts
demonstrating a constitutional deprivation and may not simply
rely on conclusory allegations. Schultea v. Wood, 47
F.3d 1427, 1433 (5th Cir.1995). Nevertheless, a district
court is bound by the allegations in a plaintiff's
complaint and is “not free to speculate that the
plaintiff ‘might' be able to state a claim if given