United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Shreveport Division
ELIZABETH E. FOOTE JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
L. HAYES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Derrick Dukes is incarcerated at Bayou Dorcheat Detention
Center and is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. He
filed the instant Complaint on March 29, 2018, under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. He names “Sheriffs Office Webster
Parish, ” Warden John Lewis, and Jerry Ray as
Defendants. For the following reasons, it is
recommended that Plaintiff's claims against
“Sheriffs Office Webster Parish” be
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
alleges that, on February 27, 2018, Defendants fired him from
his position at the “auto shop” in the Webster
Parish Jail because he is a Muslim and a part of Islam. He
claims that, two days before his termination, Defendant Ray
stated that he did not want Plaintiff at the auto shop
because Plaintiff was a Muslim. In addition to losing his
job, Defendants placed him in “the hole”
twenty-four hours per day for fifty-eight days in March and
April of 2018. Plaintiff spent eight of those days in
freezing temperatures with only a steel bed, no clothes, no
recreation, cold food, and no lighting.
amended his Complaint on May 18, 2018. He first clarified
that Warden Lewis gave direct orders to confine him under the
conditions set forth above. He also alleges that the
conditions he endured caused back pain, hypothermia,
constipation, sleep deprivation, hallucinations, and
“prayer disruption.” Plaintiff withdrew his
purported retaliation claim, but he nevertheless alleges that
Defendant Ray fired him out of “discrimination against
[Plaintiff's] religion . . . .”
seeks $20, 000.00 in compensatory damages for the
discrimination he experienced and an unstated amount of
compensatory damages for the conditions of confinement he
is an inmate who has been permitted to proceed in forma
pauperis. As an inmate 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 ...