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. Goodwin

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

March 22, 2018

DAYTREND MOSES
v.
JERRY GOODWIN, ET AL.

          HICKS JUDGE

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          MARK L. HORNSBY U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         In accordance with the standing order of this court, this matter was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for review, report and recommendation.

         STATEMENT OF CLAIM

         Before the court is a civil rights complaints filed in forma pauperis by pro se plaintiff Daytrend Moses (“Plaintiff”), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This complaint was received and filed in this court on March 3, 2017. Plaintiff is incarcerated at the David Wade Correctional Center in Homer, Louisiana. He claims his civil rights were violated by prison officials. He names Jerry Goodwin, Lonnie Nail, Tommy Garrett, Jesse Jimerson, and Mark Hunter as defendants.

         Plaintiff claims that on September 15, 2016, he was denied due process in the DWCC classification program. He claims he was not allowed to attend his scheduled extended lock-down review by Lonnie Nail and Jesse Jimerson. He claims there was no security reason or other substantial reason to deny him his right to be present at his review hearing.

         Plaintiff claims he was on extended lock-down for six months and did not receive a rule violation report during that time. He claims that in a 34 month period, he only had one rule violation report. Plaintiff claims he was denied reassignment because of the serious nature of his past offenses.

         Plaintiff claims inmate Raymond Williams, who is HIV positive, was placed on extended lock-down because he had sex and intentionally exposed another to HIV. He claims Williams was reassigned within 90 days. He claims inmate Joe Longoria was placed on extended lock-down for fighting. He claims Longoria received another rule violation report while on extended lock-down. He claims Longoria was reassigned within seven months. Plaintiff claims inmate Tyrone Pickron was placed on extended lock-down for possessing contraband. He claims Pickron was reassigned within 90 days. He claims that after Pickron was reassigned to the general population, he was written-up for a sex offense. He claims Pickron was reassigned within 90 days even though he had two rule violations within a year period. He claims the reassignment of these inmates demonstrates that he is being discriminated against by Nail, Jamison, and Goodwin.

         Plaintiff claims that when he filed a grievance in the administrative remedy procedure regarding the denial of his due process rights and retaliation, Tommy Garrett rejected his request. He claims his request was rejected even though he did not challenge the board's denial of his reassignment. He claims he challenged the fact that he was not present at the hearing and the violation of his due process rights. He claims Garrett's actions were in retaliation for his complaining and were designed to hinder and discourage him.

         Plaintiff claims that on September 23, 2016, he was escorted to Nail's office. He claims Nail and Goodwin attempted to intimidate him. He claims he was told that he had no rights and if he continued to complain, he would regret it. He claims he was also made to understand that an officer's words were always more credible and there was no reason to complain or file a grievance. He claims he was threatened that he would be dealt with if he sought outside help.

         Plaintiff claims that on December 15, 2016, he was denied the right to attend his disciplinary review by Colonel Nail and Mark Hunter. He claims he filed a grievance in the administrative remedy procedure. He claims Tommy Garrett rejected his grievance even though he challenged a due process violation. He claims he has been on extended lock-down for more than 361 days without appearing before the review board. Plaintiff claims the conditions on extended lock-down are extremely restrictive and therefore atypical and a significant hardship.

         Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks a jury trial and monetary damages.

         LAW AND ANALYSIS

         Due Process in the ...


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.