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.

Mitchell v. Myles

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

June 19, 2018

BOBBY MITCHELL
v.
ROBERT MYLES, ET AL.

         SECTION P

          TERRY A. DOUGHTY JUDGE

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          KAREN L. HAYES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff Bobby Mitchell is incarcerated at Bossier Medium Correctional Center and is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. He filed the instant Complaint on April 4, 2018, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He names Robert Myles, Officer Beckly, Cpt. Crain, and Sheriff Clay Bennett as Defendants.[1] For the following reasons, it is recommended that Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Bennett, Plaintiff's access to court claim, and Plaintiff's request to charge all Defendants with crimes be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.[2]

         Background

         Plaintiff alleges that, on April 9, 2017, Defendant Myles “used brutal force” on him. While conducting a “lock down check, ” Myles ordered Plaintiff to position a mat in several different manners. Although Plaintiff peacefully complied with the instructions, Myles sprayed Plaintiff with a chemical agent. When Plaintiff tried to run, Myles hit him near his eye with an unknown object, knocking Plaintiff unconscious. When he woke, he discovered that Myles was stomping on him and repeatedly kicking him in the face. Then, while Plaintiff remained on the floor, Myles shocked him with a Taser.

         After ordering Plaintiff to rise, Myles placed Plaintiff in handcuffs and escorted him to the bathroom. He pushed Plaintiff against a wall, causing Plaintiff to hit his head. Defendant Beckly entered the bathroom and ordered Plaintiff to remove his blood-stained clothing. After showering, Beckly handcuffed Plaintiff and arranged for transportation to a hospital.

         Plaintiff claims that he did nothing to provoke Myles. He alleges that Myles's actions caused his face to swell, lacerations, blood loss, and fractured ribs. Physicians stitched his lacerations and performed surgery on his eye.

         Plaintiff alleges further that Defendants Beckly and Crain attempted to conceal Myles's actions by, respectively, discarding Plaintiff's blood-stained clothing and transferring him to Richland Parish. [doc. # 9, pp. 4, 5, 9, and 10].

         Plaintiff seeks $375, 000.00 in damages, and he asks the Court to charge Defendants with crimes. [doc. #s 1, 9].

         Law and Analysis

         1. Preliminary Screening

         Plaintiff 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.[3] 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.

         A 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 ...


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.