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.

Moses v. Geo

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lake Charles Division

March 14, 2018

KELVIN MOSES DOC # 600226
v.
GEO, ET AL.

         SECTION P

          MEMORANDUM ORDER

          KATHLEEN KAY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Before the court is a civil rights complaint [doc. 1] filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by plaintiff Kelvin Moses, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this matter. Moses is an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections and is currently incarcerated at River Bend Detention Center in Lake Providence, Louisiana. His complaint relates to events that occurred while he was incarcerated at Allen Correctional Center (“ALC”) in Kinder, Louisiana.

         I.

         Background

         Moses states that he was coming in from supper on March 19, 2017, when he found that the tier doors to his unit were closed. Doc. 1, p. 3. He went to the pod where ALC staff members Sergeant William Coleman and Sergeant Tucker were and asked Coleman to open a door for him, but Coleman “flip[ped him] the middle finger.” Id. He then asked Tucker to open the door, but Tucker looked at him and then began to walk away. Id. Moses asked if Tucker was Coleman's son, at which point both guards began to curse at Moses with Moses cursing back. Id. at 3-4. Tucker came out of the pod and threatened to assault Moses and then Coleman stood in front of Moses and invited Moses to perform a sexual act on him. Id. at 4.

         Moses states that he then wrote up Coleman on Prison Rape Elimination Act (“PREA”) charges, and that all such complaints are investigated by Captain Terry Langley. Id. Langley called him in for an interview, along with Sergeant Griffin, on March 24, 2017. Id. Moses gave them his version of events and the names of two witnesses. Id. Later that day, Langley told Moses that it was PREA protocol that he be moved and transferred him that day from Saturn Unit, an honor unit where he felt “safe and comfortable, ” to Mercury Unit, which had a reputation for violence. Id. at 4-5. On March 28, 2017, Langley told Moses that the main office had determined that Coleman's actions were disciplinary and not covered by the PREA. Id. at 5.

         Moses then returned to the Mercury Unit and called the PREA's 1-800 reporting number. On that same day, he filed a written complaint against Langley, Warden Keith Cooley, Warden Anthony Allemande, Warden Mark Estes, and GEO for not following PREA protocol. Id. Specifically, he alleges that: 1) he never talked to the “head of administration or medical;” 2) he never saw to spoke to any warden; 3) rather than being suspended until the investigation was over, Coleman remained on his regular schedule and Langley transferred Moses instead; and 4) Langley violated Moses's Eighth Amendment rights by moving him from a safe environment to a hostile one. Id. at 5-6. He maintains that Coleman was also let go, but only because he refused to work on a different unit and not because of the PREA charges. Id. at 6.

         Moses now brings suit in this court, alleging that the named ALC defendants (Langley, Cooley, Allemande, and Estes) are liable for failure to protect and that GEO President and Senior Vice President David J. Donahue is liable for failure to protect and deliberate indifference.[1] Id. at 8. He requests monetary damages. Id. He also states that he is transsexual and would like to be treated like other inmates, but maintains that there are officers who are uncomfortable working around him. Id. at 7.

         II.

         Law & Analysis

         A. Frivolity Review

         Moses has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this matter. Accordingly, his complaint is subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which provides for sua sponte dismissal of the complaint or any portion thereof if the court determines that it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii).

         A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Gonzalez v. Wyatt, 157 F.3d 1016, 1019 (5th Cir. 1998). A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it is clear the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief. Doe v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 153 F.3d 211, 215 (5th Cir. 1998). When determining whether a complaint is frivolous or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the court must accept the plaintiff's ...


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.