United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Monroe Division
A. DOUGHTY JUDGE.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
L HAYES, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Lyndell Joseph, an inmate at the Jackson Parish Correctional
Center, filed the instant pro se and in forma pauperis
Complaint on December 18, 2017. Proceeding under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, Plaintiff sets forth allegations against
Defendants Kevin Kelly and Jackson Parish Correctional
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.
For the following reasons, it is recommended that
Plaintiff's claims be DENIED AND DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE as frivolous and for failing to state a
claim for which relief may be granted.
alleges that, while in a “lockdown” cell,
Defendant Kevin Kelly instructed him to take of his
“jumper” so that another individual could
“see the marks on [his] back from when . . . Kelly
tazed [him] weeks before.” Kelly told him that if he
did not take his clothes off he would “taze” him
again. Plaintiff alleges further that he took his clothes off
and Kelly told him that he had a “nice ass.”
put his clothes back on and walked with Kelly “to the J
dorm” where Kelly “smack[ed]” Plaintiff.
After Plaintiff stated that he would report Kelly's
actions, Kelly “told the inmates in J dorm [that
Plaintiff] was a rat.”
asks the Court to terminate Kelly's employment and charge
Kelly with sexual harassment. Plaintiff seeks $20, 000.00 in
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,
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
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. Courts are also afforded the unusual power to pierce the
veil of the factual allegations and dismiss those claims
whose factual contentions are clearly baseless. Id.
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). Likewise, a 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, ...