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.

Thomas v. Leblanc

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

June 18, 2018

DENNIS D. THOMAS, Plaintiff
v.
JAMES LEBLANC, ET AL., Defendant

          DEE D. DRELL JUDGE

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          Joseph H.L. Perez-Montes United States Magistrate Judge

         Before the Court is a civil rights complaint (42 U.S.C. § 1983) filed by pro se Plaintiff Dennis D. Thomas (#533237) (“Thomas”). Thomas was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 5). Thomas is an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Corrections (“DOC”), incarcerated at the David Wade Correctional Center (“DWCC”) in Homer, Louisiana. Thomas complains that Defendants failed to protect him from harm inflicted by other inmates at Winn Correctional Center (“WCC”).[1]

         Because Thomas cannot show that he is entitled to statutory tolling, his complaint should be dismissed as untimely.

         I. Background

         Thomas was attacked by another prisoner at WCC on April 8, 2013. (Doc. 1, p. 16). Thomas was pushed three times by the other inmate. After the third time, Thomas “defended himself by striking the prisoner upon the chin, ” causing the attacker “to fall in to a dazed stupor.” (Doc. 1, pp. 16-17). When he awoke, the attacker charged at Thomas, but then retreated to the end of the tier. (Doc. 1, p. 17). Thomas followed the attacker “imploring him to make peace.” (Doc. 1, p. 17). The attacker “retrieved an ankle-wrap which he then used to cover the knuckles of his right hand.” (Doc. 13, p. 3). The attacker and Thomas “squared off.” (Doc. 1, p. 17). Another inmate then attacked Thomas from behind. (Doc. 1, p. 18).

         Thomas walked to the infirmary, where he noticed three puncture wounds on his head. (Doc. 1, p. 19). Nurse Warren cleaned Thomas's wounds. (Doc. 1, p. 19).

         Thomas met with Shift Supervisor Ward, who informed Thomas that the surveillance footage was of poor quality. (Doc. 1 p. 20). Thomas's request to review the footage himself was denied. (Doc. 1, p. 20).

         Thomas was escorted to disciplinary segregation and charged with a disciplinary violation. (Doc. 1, p. 21). Thomas was convicted and sentenced to ten days of segregation. (Doc. 1, p. 22).

         Thomas submitted an administrative grievance on April 15, 2013, arguing that he should have been allowed to view the surveillance footage to aid in defending against his disciplinary charge. The response to Thomas's grievance was issued over three years later, on December 8, 2016, after a change in WCC's prison management company. (Doc. 1-2, p. 1). The grievance was denied by the DOC Secretary on January 30, 2017.

         II. Law and Analysis

         A. Thomas's complaint is subject to screening under §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A.

         Thomas 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 Thomas 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.

         B. Thomas's ...


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.