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.

Eurings v. Gusman

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

July 17, 2018

HENRY EURINGS, Plaintiff
v.
SHERIFF GUSMAN, ET AL. Defendants

         SECTION: “E” (1)

          ORDER

          SUSIE MORGAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Before the Court is Plaintiff Henry Eurings's pro se action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.[1] Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated, alleges he received inadequate medical care after he was beaten while in custody.[2] Plaintiff sued Orleans Parish Sheriff Marlin Gusman, “Medical Intake, ” Warden McKnight, the Riverbend Detention Center, “Medical Staff, ” and other unidentified parties.[3] Plaintiff also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order against Sheriff Gusman and Sheriff Gusman's attorney, Blake Acuri, seeking to enjoin them from “commit[ing] mental assaults [and] threats of harassment . . . [and] provoking[ing] Plaintiff to [commit] disciplinary [infractions in order to] lock Plaintiff down . . . and rebook Plaintiff.”[4] Plaintiff's complaint and request for injunctive relief were referred to the United States Magistrate Judge who issued her Report and Recommendation on July 3, 2018.[5] On July 5, 2018, Plaintiff filed a memorandum in support of his complaint and a motion for summary judgment, which the Court construes as an objection to the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation.[6]

         In her Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge van Meerveld recommended that Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed with prejudice as malicious.[7] Regarding in forma pauperis Plaintiffs, U.S. Code Title 28 section 1915 provides “the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action is malicious.”[8] In Bailey v. Johnson, the Fifth Circuit held that repetitious litigation of virtually identical causes of action are malicious.[9] Further, a district court has especially broad discretion when determining when to dismiss an in forma pauperis proceedings.[10]

         In this case, Plaintiff admits to having filed a previous complaint, but states the prison destroyed his paperwork from the previous complaint.[11] After detailing the facts and Plaintiff's claims, the magistrate judge determined that the suit Plaintiff previously filed was dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute.[12] In this case, Plaintiff adds new defendants, but this does not change the fact that the allegations in the instant complaint are virtually identical to Plaintiff's prior complaint[13] Simply listing new defendants in a complaint that reiterates claims that were previously dismissed does not cure a finding of maliciousness.[14] The Court concludes that, in this case, the magistrate judge's finding that the instant suit is malicious is correct.

         Plaintiff also requested injunctive relief.[15] However, there is not a substantial likelihood that Plaintiff will succeed on the merits of his claim, given that his claim should be dismissed as malicious.[16] Further, the Fifth Circuit has held that a plaintiff must show that a substantial threat of harm exists if the injunction is not granted.[17] Even if the instant claim were not malicious, Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief is unrelated to his lawsuit. In this case, the alleged violation of Plaintiff's civil rights has already occurred. Although unclear in his requests, Plaintiff's demand for injunctive relief is not related to these prior incidents. Thus, the magistrate judge correctly found that the request for injunctive relief should be denied.

         The Court, having considered the record, the applicable law, relevant findings, and the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation finds the magistrate judge's findings of fact and conclusions of law are correct and hereby approves the U.S. Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and adopts it as its opinion in this matter.[18]

         Accordingly;

         CONCLUSION

         IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Henry Eurings's petition against Respondents Sheriff Marlin Gusman, Warden McKnight, Medical Intake Department, Medical Staff, Riverbend Detention Center, and other unidentified parties be and hereby is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as malicious.[19]

         IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order against Sheriff Gusman and Sheriff Gusman's attorney, Blake Acuri, be and hereby is DENIED.[20]

         IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment be and hereby is DENIED.[21]

---------


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.