United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Alexandria Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
H.L. Perez-Montes, United States Magistrate Judge.
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
Coty has not alleged deliberate indifference by the
Defendants, his complaint should be dismissed.
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).
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.
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.”
Law and Analysis
Coty's complaint is subject to screening under
§§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A.
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.
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).
Coty does not state a failure to ...