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.

Verdin v. Larpenter

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

July 16, 2018

SOLOMON J. VERDIN, JR.
v.
SHERIFF JERRY LARPENTER, ET AL.

         SECTION “J” (4)

          ORDER AND REASONS

          KAREN WELLS ROBY CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         The pro se plaintiff, Solomon J. Verdin, Jr., has filed the following ex parte motions seeking various relief in connection with his in forma pauperis complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983:

(1) Motion for Leave to File Second Supplemental Complaint (Rec. Doc. No. 22) to include as exhibits copies of two of his disciplinary reports;
(2) Motion for Leave to File Third Supplemental Complaint (Rec. Doc. No. 23) seeking to add claims against the “medical personnel” claiming that he is supposed to be housed in a medical unit; and
(3) “Motion to Re-Compel” (Rec. Doc. No. 33) seeking an order directed to Warden Triche to provide Verdin with copies of all of the grievances he has filed;

         Verdin filed the captioned complaint against the defendants, Terrebonne Parish Sheriff Jerry Larpenter, Warden Claude Triche, Captain Mitch Dupre, Captain Steve Bergeron, Captain Rhonda Ledet, Lieutenant Jeremy Authement, Lieutenant Tyler Theriot, Lieutenant Nicholas Daigle, Deputy April Bergeron, Deputy Kyndalyn Verdict, Deputy Kristie Johnson, and Deputy Maci Hidalgo, claiming that his right to privacy is violated, because female guards at the Terrebonne Parish Criminal Justice Complex can see the inmates naked in the showers.[1] He also asserts that the female deputies are distracted by the nude inmates and, as a result, he is often not taken for his breathing treatments on time.

         I. Motions to Supplement (Rec. Doc. Nos. 22, 23)

         Verdin seeks to add exhibits to his pleadings, specifically copies of two disciplinary reports filed against him for rule violations which he claims were falsified. He also moves to include claims against unidentified “medical personnel” for failing to house him in a medical unit.

         Generally, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) governs the amendment of pleadings before trial. Rule 15(a) allows a party to amend its pleadings “only with the other party's written consent or the court's leave.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). Moreover, the Rule urges that the Court “should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Id. In taking this liberal approach, the Rule “reject[s] the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 48 (1957).

         “Rule 15(a) requires a trial court ‘to grant leave to amend freely,' and the language of this rule ‘evinces a bias in favor of granting leave to amend.'” Jones v. Robinson Prop. Grp., 427 F.3d 987, 994 (5th Cir. 2005) (internal quotations marks omitted) (quoting Lyn-Lea Travel Corp. v. Am. Airlines, 283 F.3d 282, 286 (5th Cir. 2002)). When addressing a motion to amend, the court must have a “substantial reason” considering such factors as “‘undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failures to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party . . . and futility of the amendment.'” Marucci Sports, LLC v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 751 F.3d 368, 378 (5th Cir. 2014) (quoting Jones, 427 F.3d at 994). An amendment is deemed to be futile if it would be dismissed under a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Id. (citing Briggs v. Miss., 331 F.3d 499, 508 (5th Cir. 2003)).

         In this case, neither of Verdin's motions present matters which meet the standard for an amendment under Rule 15. First, the disciplinary reports are exhibits which are not needed as a part of Verdin's pleadings. If his claims proceed, he will have an opportunity in the appropriate hearing or proceeding to present relevant and admissible exhibits. He has failed to establish a right to supplement the record at this time.

         In addition, Verdin has failed to identify the particular defendant or the “medical personnel” against whom he seeks to assert his claim that he should be housed in a medical unit. Even if he were to do so, the amendment would be futile. Verdin has not right to be housed in a particular part of the prison. Lofton v. Estes, No. 09-1789, 2010 WL 5663104, at *4 (W.D. La. Dec. 28, 2010) (citing Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 244-46 (1983)). As such, his proposed new claim fails to state a non-frivolous claim or one for which relief could be granted. For this reason, he is not entitled to supplement his complaint under Rule 15.

         For the foregoing reasons, Verdin's Motion for Leave to File Second Supplemental Complaint (Rec. Doc. No. 22) and Motion for Leave to File Third ...


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.