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.

Harris v. Sheriffs Dept. Ouachita Parish

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

June 26, 2018

MICHAEL D. HARRIS
v.
SHERIFFS DEPT. OUACHITA PARISH, ET AL.

         SECTION P

          TERRY A. DOUGHTY JUDGE

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          KAREN L. HAYES MAG. JUDGE

         Plaintiff Michael D. Harris is incarcerated at Ouachita Correctional Center and is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. He filed the instant Complaint on May 3, 2018, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He names “Sheriffs Dept. Ouachita Parish, ” Jay Russell, and Nathaniel Dean as Defendants.[1" name="FN1" id= "FN1">1] For the following reasons, it is recommended that Plaintiff9;s request for this Court to intervene in his state court proceeding, as well as his claims against Defendants “Sheriffs Dept. Ouachita Parish” and Jay Russell, be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. It is further recommended that the remainder of this action be STAYED.

         Background

         Plaintiff alleges that, on July 2, 2017, Deputy Nathaniel Dean and Deputy Antley Devin responded to a call regarding a “disturbance” at 1490 Highway 594 in Monroe, Louisiana. After the deputies arrived, a “physical confrontation took place.” Both deputies shot Plaintiff several times with “taser darts.” Deputy Dean then shot Plaintiff in the arm and chest with his “9mm weapon” when Plaintiff9;s “back was turned.” Plaintiff fell to the floor and was subsequently airlifted to a hospital.

         Plaintiff faults Defendant Dean for shooting him “when he could [have] used another measure to handle the situation.” He continues to suffer “sharp pains” in his chest.

         Following the altercation, Plaintiff was charged with simple battery, aggravated assault, battery of a police officer, disarming a police officer, aggravated assault on a police officer, and aggravated battery. [doc. # 9, 1');">p. 1]. The charges remain pending. Id.

         Plaintiff asks the Court to: (1) dismiss all of his criminal charges; (2) order the Sheriff9;s Department to pay his medical bills; (3) award $1, 000, 000.00 for the physical and mental pain he suffered; and (4) discharge Defendant Dean from his employment.

         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, 90 U.S. 319');">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.