United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Monroe Division
TYRONE W. HADLEY, JR.
RIVER BEND DETENTION CENTER, ET AL.
A. DOUGHTY JUDGE.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
L. HAYES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Tyrone W. Hadley, Jr., a detainee at East Baton Rouge Parish
Prison proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed the
instant Complaint on March 2, 2018, under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. He names the following Defendants: River Bend Detention
Center, Warden Johnny Hedgemond, Robert Russell, Captain
Poche, Terence Dismuke, and Lieutenant Cry. For the following
reasons, it is recommended that Plaintiff's Complaint be
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
alleges that, on February 2, 2018, at River Bend Detention
Center, officials said that he and other inmates would
receive a mandatory haircut if their hair was over a certain
length. Plaintiff alleges that “it was up to the prison
guards' discretion” to choose inmates for haircuts,
but he later alleges that he was informed that haircuts were
“policy.” Plaintiff refused to cut his hair
because of his religion. However, after officials threatened
him with “physical force” if he did not comply,
Plaintiff submitted and an inmate cut his hair.
claims that the clippers the inmate used damaged his roots
and that his hair is now “growing in spots.” He
seeks punitive damages and $850, 000.00 for mental anguish
and emotional distress.
is a detainee who has been permitted to proceed in forma
pauperis. As a detainee 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 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. 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, the court must assume that all
of the plaintiff's factual allegations are true.
Bradley v. Puckett, 157 F.3d 1022, 1025 (5th Cir.
rights plaintiff must support his claims with specific facts
demonstrating a constitutional deprivation and may not simply
rely on conclusory allegations. Ashcroft, 556 U.S.
at 662; Schultea v. Wood, 47 F.3d 1427, 1433 (5th
Cir. 1995). Nevertheless, a district court is bound by the
allegations in a plaintiff's complaint and is “not
free to speculate that the plaintiff ‘might' be
able to state a claim if given yet another opportunity to add
more facts to the complaint.” Macias v. Raul A.
(Unknown) Badge No. 153, 23 F.3d 94, 97 (5th Cir. 1994).
hearing need not be conducted for every pro se complaint.
Wilson v. Barrientos, 926 F.2d 480, 483 n.4 (5th
Cir. 1991). A district court may dismiss a prisoner's
civil rights complaint as frivolous based upon the complaint