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.

Wells v. Nail

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

August 7, 2018

EDWARD WELLS
v.
LONNIE NAIL

         SECTION P

          ELIZABETH E. FOOTE, JUDGE

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          KAREN L. HAYES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff 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.

         Background

         Plaintiff 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. # 9-1].

         Defendant 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.

         Law and Analysis

         1. Preliminary Screening

         Plaintiff 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.

         A 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.

         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, 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. 1998).

         A civil 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).

         A 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 ...


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.