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.

Crawford v. McDaniel

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

August 6, 2018

TRACY CRAWFORD
v.
ELVAN MCDANIEL

         SECTION P

          ELIZABETH E. FOOTE JUDGE.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          KAREN L. HAYES MAG. JUDGE.

         Plaintiff 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.[2] 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.

         Background

         Plaintiff 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.

         Plaintiff 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].

         Plaintiff 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.

         Plaintiff 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 lost wages.

         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.[3] 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.