United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Monroe Division
MICHAEL D. HARRIS
SHERIFFS DEPT. OUACHITA PARISH, ET AL.
A. DOUGHTY JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
L. HAYES MAG. JUDGE
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.
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.
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
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
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
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. 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.
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.
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 ...