United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Shreveport Division
ELIZABETH E. FOOTE JUDGE.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
L. HAYES MAG. JUDGE.
Tracy Crawford, a former detainee at the Claiborne Parish
Detention Center[1" name="FN1" id=
"FN1">1]proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
filed the instant Complaint on November 7, 2017');">17, under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff names Officer Elvan McDaniel as
Defendant. For the following reasons, it is recommended that
Plaintiff9;s request for this Court to intervene in his
state court proceeding be DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE. It is further recommended that this
action be STAYED.
alleges that, on October 20, 2017');">17, Officer Elvan McDaniel of
the Claiborne Parish Police Department questioned him about a
stolen firearm. Plaintiff alleges that, although he posed no
threat to McDaniel, McDaniel shocked him with a Taser in the
lower back. McDaniel then extracted the Taser prongs from
Plaintiff9;s back “without medical assistance,
” causing Plaintiff to bleed profusely.
claims further that he “did not receive any medical
treatment after he was tazed . . . .” [doc. # 9, 1');">p. 1');">1');">p. 1].
“He was not bandaged up, but instead [was] brought to
Claiborne Detention Center bleeding profoundly from the
wound.” Id. His “lower back was hurting
. . . but [he] received no immediate care.” Instead of
arranging treatment, McDaniel taunted him and stated,
“You got exactly what you deserve and keep it up, there
will be more where that came from.” [doc. # 17');">17, 1');">p. 1');">1');">p. 1].
Plaintiff alleges that a nurse at the detention center stated
that the arresting officers should have arranged for medical
treatment because the detention center was not
“equipped to look into such matters without a doctor
present.” [doc. # 9].
is currently charged with possession of a firearm by a
convicted felon. Id. at 9. He challenges the charge,
contending that “no firearm was ever found on [his]
person or property[, ]” and that he was charged
“due to a statement given by a convicted felon . . .
.” Id. at 2.
claims that the Taser shock caused him pain and loss of
sleep. He seeks dismissal of the pending charge against him
and compensation for his medical bills, his injuries, and 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 ...