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.

Jackson v. Johnson

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

June 25, 2018

RAFEL ANTION JACKSON
v.
CHARLES R. JOHNSON, ET AL.

         SECTION P

          TERRY A. DOUGHTY JUDGE

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          Karen L. Hay United States Magistrate Judge

         Plaintiff Rafel Antion Jackson, a detainee at River Bend Detention Center proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed the instant Complaint on April 13, 2018, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He names the following Defendants: Charles Ray Johnson, Dorthy Lee, Chris Walker, Malcolm Welch, Chad Lee, and Danny Lively.[1" name="FN1" id= "FN1">1] For the following reasons, it is recommended that Plaintiff's claims be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

         Background

         Plaintiff alleges that on March 11, 2018, at Franklin Parish Detention Center, Defendant Lee, at the behest of Defendant Johnson, unreasonably or unlawfully strip searched his girlfriend, Felicia R. Bruce. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Johnson falsely accused Felicia of bringing contraband-two sodas-into the detention center. According to Plaintiff, Defendants knew that Felicia did not bring the sodas into the facility because Defendant Lively and others saw Plaintiff bring the sodas to the visitation room. Plaintiff maintains that Defendants conducted the unlawful search because he and his girlfriend are an interracial couple.

         Plaintiff alleges further that Defendant Walker unlawfully strip searched him. Defendant Walker allegedly admitted that he had no cause for the search, but “said he had to follow [the] Captain's orders . . . .”

         Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Johnson transferred him to another facility in retaliation for filing two grievances. He claims that Johnson offered to withdraw the transfer order if Plaintiff “tore up” the grievances. Plaintiff obliged, but Johnson did not withdraw the order.

         Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' actions amounted to mental abuse and caused him to break up with Felicia, resulting in a broken heart beyond repair. Plaintiff also suffered humiliation, grief, emotional and mental anguish, weight loss, and hair loss. He asks the Court to fire all of the officers involved and he seeks between $52, 000.00 and $200, 000.00 for mental anguish.

         Law and Analysis

         1. Preliminary Screening

         Plaintiff 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.[2] 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, 19');">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.

         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 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 ...


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.