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.

Robinson v. Shreveport Police Department Officers

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

May 14, 2018

LADARIUS D. ROBINSON
v.
SHREVEPORT POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICERS, ET AL.

         SECTION P

          TERRY A. DOUGHTY JUDGE

          MEMORANDUM ORDER

          KAREN L. HAYES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Plaintiff Ladarius D. Robinson is incarcerated at Caddo Correctional Center and is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. He filed the instant Complaint on March 13, 2018, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).[1] He names “Shreveport Police Department Officers, ” “US Marshals Office, ” “Cpl. Hammer, ” and “K9 Juice” as Defendants.[2]

         Background

         Plaintiff alleges that, on October 5, 2017, officers with the Shreveport Police Department and the United States Marshals Service pursued him. Officers then searched his grandmother's home pursuant to a warrant and located him in a closet. Plaintiff claims that Defendant “K9 Juice, ” a police dog, attacked him in the closet. After Plaintiff screamed for help, Defendant Hammer found Plaintiff and began to kick and punch him for a “lengthy time.” Plaintiff claims that, once officers pulled him from the closet and placed him in handcuffs, Defendant Hammer allowed the police dog to “once again rip open [his] flesh, ” resulting in injuries to his right arm and permanent damage to his left hand. Plaintiff faults Defendants for excessive force and for failing to protect him. He seeks “monetary gain” for his injuries.

         Amendment

         While Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 does not require explicit detail, it does require a plaintiff to allege some facts which support the conclusion that his constitutional rights were violated by the defendants. In other words, a civil rights plaintiff must support his claims with specific facts demonstrating a constitutional deprivation and may not simply rely on conclusory allegations. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009); Schultea v. Wood, 47 F.3d 1427, 1433 (5th Cir. 1995).

         The Court has identified several deficiencies in Plaintiff's allegations. Before proceeding further, Plaintiff should amend his Complaint, provide the information outlined below, and remedy the deficiencies described below. See Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985). At the very least, Plaintiff should provide:

(1) the name of each person who allegedly violated his constitutional rights;
(2) a separate description of what, exactly, each person did to violate Plaintiff's rights; in other words, a description of how each person participated in the violation of his constitutional rights;
(3) a description of the injury, if any, sustained as a result of each alleged violation; and
(4) the specific place and date that each event ...

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.