United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Alexandria Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
H.L. Perez-Montes, United States Magistrate Judge.
the Court is a civil rights complaint (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
filed by pro se Plaintiff Michael Dorsey (#129046)
(“Dorsey”). Dorsey was granted leave to proceed
in forma pauperis. (Doc. 12). Dorsey is an inmate in
the custody of the Louisiana Department of Corrections
(“DOC”), incarcerated at the Raymond Laborde
Correctional Center (“RLCC”) in Cottonport,
fails to state a constitutional claim for which relief can be
granted, so his federal claims should be dismissed with
prejudice. Dorsey's claims under state law should be
dismissed without prejudice.
original complaint, Dorsey alleges that, in November 2016, he
received notice that a disciplinary conviction had been
remanded on appeal. (Doc. 1, p. 2). Dorsey alleges that, on
December 7, 2016, the disciplinary charge was dropped. (Doc.
1, p. 2). Dorsey was not released from the maximum custody
cell. (Doc. 1, p. 2).
December 25, 2016, Dorsey was notified by a family member
that his brother, also an RLCC inmate, had died of
“unknown causes.” (Doc. 1, p. 2). Because Dorsey
was still classified as a maximum custody prisoner, he was
not allowed to attend his brother's funeral. (Doc. 1, p.
original complaint, Dorsey maintains that he should have been
released from maximum custody to the general population on
December 7, 2016, when the disciplinary charges were dropped.
Dorsey claims Defendants did not release him as retaliation.
(Doc. 9, p. 6). Additionally, Dorsey claims Defendant McCain
failed to act or intervene “to correct the obvious
wrongs done” after being placed on notice through the
grievance process. (Doc. 9, p. 7).
also claims Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his
brother's medical needs in violation of the Eighth
Amendment, which resulted in the death of Dorsey's
brother. (Doc. 9, pp. 6-7).
Dorsey alleges negligence under Louisiana law. (Doc. 9, p.
amended complaint (Doc. 16), Dorsey complains about a second
disciplinary conviction on December 27, 2017, for which
Dorsey was sanctioned with 10 days disciplinary segregation
and four weeks' loss of phone privileges. (Doc. 16-1, p.
1). Dorsey complains the disciplinary conviction is invalid,
and he is innocent of the charges. (Doc. 16).
Law and Analysis A.
Dorsey's complaint is subject to screening under
§§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A.
is a prisoner who has been allowed to proceed in forma
pauperis. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915A provides for the
preliminary screening of lawsuits filed by prisoners seeking
redress from an officer or employee of a governmental entity.
See Martin v. Scott, 156 F.3d 578, 579-80
(5th Cir. 1998) (per curiam); Rosborough v. Mgmt. and
Training Corp., 350 F.3d 459, 461 (5th Cir. 2003)
(holding that private prison-management corporations and
their employees are state actors under § 1983). Because
Dorsey 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. 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 ...