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.

Coty v. Parish

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

August 23, 2018

NORMAN ALLEN COTY #603369, Plaintiff
v.
SHERIFF'S OFFICE RAPIDES PARISH, Defendant

         SEC. P

          DEE D. DRELL, JUDGE.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          Joseph H.L. Perez-Montes, United States Magistrate Judge.

         Before the Court is a civil rights complaint (42 U.S.C. § 1983) filed by pro se Plaintiff Norman Allen Coty (#603369) (“Coty”). Coty is a detainee at the Rapides Parish Detention Center III (“RPDC”) in Alexandria, Louisiana. Coty was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 8). Coty complains that Defendants failed to protect him from an attack by other inmates.

         Because Coty has not alleged deliberate indifference by the Defendants, his complaint should be dismissed.

         I. Background

         Coty alleges he was detained at the RPDC after being arrested. Once placed in the dorm, Coty was attacked by four convicted inmates. Coty was transported to the hospital with serious injuries. Coty seeks monetary damages and a release from incarceration. (Doc. 1).

         Coty was ordered to amend his petition to state the names of each person that allegedly violated Coty's constitutional rights; a description of what each Defendant did to violate Coty's rights; the place and dates that each event occurred; and a description of the injury sustained as a result of each alleged violation. Coty was further instructed to explain how each Defendant acted with deliberate indifference and failed to protect him by providing facts indicating whether Defendants had any knowledge that Coty faced a substantial risk of harm by the particular inmates that attacked Coty.

         In his amended complaint, Coty identifies the defendants as Lt. Lamone, Cpl. Eldris, and Sgt. Hudson. Coty allegedly told Defendants he “couldn't live at this jail.” (Doc. 10).

         II. Law and Analysis

         A. Coty's complaint is subject to screening under §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A.

         Coty is a prisoner who has been allowed to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 8). As a prisoner seeking redress from an officer or employee of a governmental entity, Coty's 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); Rosborough v. Mgmt. and Training Corp., 350 F.3d 459, 461 (5th Cir. 2003) (holding that prison management corporations and their employees are state actors under § 1983). Because he is proceeding in forma pauperis, Coty's 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, 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. 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); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009).

         B. Coty does not state a failure to ...


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.