United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Shreveport Division
DENNIS RAY DAVIS JR.
ROBERT WYCHE, ET AL.
ELIZABETH E. FOOTE MAG. JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
L. HAYES UNITED SATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
the Court is a civil rights complaint (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
filed by pro se Plaintiff Dennis Ray Davis, Jr. (#469947).
Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma
pauperis on October 18, 2017. (Doc. 8). Plaintiff is an
inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of
Corrections, incarcerated at the Caddo Parish Jail. Plaintiff
was convicted of DWI, and he has other criminal charges
pending. (Docs. 1, 10). Plaintiff complains of false
imprisonment and the violation of his constitutional rights
by several attorneys.
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.
original, deficient complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he is
wrongfully imprisoned. (Doc. 1, pp. 1-2). He named as
defendants Warden Bobby Wyche, Cheryl Stills, Yolanda
Williams, Theresa Ruffin, and Lt. Sharon. (Doc. 1, p. 4).
complaint that was submitted on the proper court-approved
form, Plaintiff names numerous public defenders as
Defendants, including James Dixon, Pamela Smart, Carlos
Prudhomme, and Rickey Swiffts.
has filed four other civil cases in this Court, three of
which are pending review, and one of which was dismissed as
frivolous or for failure to state a claim.
is a prisoner who has been allowed to proceed in forma
pauperis. As a prisoner seeking redress from an officer
or employee of a governmental entity, Plaintiff's
complaint is subject to preliminary screening pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A. See Martin v. Scott, 156 F.3d
578, 579-80 (5th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). Because he is
proceeding in forma pauperis, Plaintiff's
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.
complaint is frivolous when it “lacks an arguable basis
either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v.
Williams, 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); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009).
state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the
violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of
the United States. The plaintiff must also show that the
alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under
color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42,
48 (1988) (citations omitted). A plaintiff may satisfy the
“under color of state law” requirement of §
1983 by proving that the conduct causing the deprivation is
fairly attributable to the state. See Lugar v. Edmondson
Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 937 (1982). “Fair
attribution” requires that: (1) the deprivation is
caused by the exercise of a state-created right or privilege,
by a state-imposed rule ...