United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Shreveport Division
ELIZABETH E. FOOTE, JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
L. HAYES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Edward Wells, an inmate at David Wade Correctional Center
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed the instant
Complaint on April 20, 2018, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He
names Lonnie Nail as Defendant.[1" name=
"FN1" id="FN1">1] For the following reasons, it is
recommended that Plaintiff's Complaint be
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
alleges that, on the day he arrived at David Wade
Correctional Center, Defendant, a much larger man, battered
him and repeatedly sprayed him with mace. Two disciplinary
reports that Plaintiff attaches to his Amended Complaint
reveal that the incident occurred on August 29, 2016. [doc. #
allegedly slammed Plaintiff against a wall, which snapped his
neck and caused severe pain, damage to both his nerves and
vertebrae, loss of sleep, and loss of feeling in his hands.
During the attack, Plaintiff wore handcuffs, leg shackles,
and a “black box” attached to a “belly
chain, ” posing “no danger or threat” to
Defendant. He claims that, instead of using excessive force,
Defendant could have utilized his radio, his beeper, or other
security personnel. Plaintiff seeks $25, 000.00 in
compensatory damages and $25, 000.00 in punitive damages.
is an inmate who has been permitted to proceed in forma
pauperis. As an inmate 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.[2" name="FN2" id=
"FN2">2] 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, 19');">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, 2');">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 assume that all
of the plaintiff's factual allegations are true.
Bradley v. Puckett, 157 F.3d 1022');">157 F.3d 1022, 1025 (5th Cir.
rights plaintiff must support his claims with specific facts
demonstrating a constitutional deprivation and may not simply
rely on conclusory allegations. Ashcroft, 556 U.S.
at 662; Schultea v. Wood, 1427');">47 F.3d 1427, 1433 (5th
Cir. 1995). Nevertheless, a district court is bound by the
allegations in a plaintiff's complaint and is “not
free to speculate that the plaintiff ‘might' be
able to state a claim if given yet another opportunity to add
more facts to the complaint.” Macias v. Raul A.
(Unknown) Badge No. 153, 23 F.3d 94');">23 F.3d 94, 97 (5th Cir. 1994).
hearing need not be conducted for every pro se complaint.
Wilson v. Barrientos, 26 F.2d 480');">926 F.2d 480, 483 n.4 (5th
Cir. 1991). A district court may dismiss a prisoner's
civil rights complaint as frivolous based upon the complaint