United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
VAN MEERVELD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Elijah Dejon Burrow, a state pretrial detainee, filed this
pro se and in forma pauperis civil action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He sued the following
defendants: Jefferson Parish Sheriff Joseph P. Lopinto; the
Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office; and “Officer
Mclin.” In this lawsuit, plaintiff's statement of
his claims, in its entirety, is as follows: “Officer
Mclin punched me in my face, pulled down my pants in front of
everybody, stood on my neck, laughed at me, put false charges
on me, didn't return my property.”
respect to actions filed in forma pauperis, federal
Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that
may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any
time if the court determines that ... the action …
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted;
or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
law also mandates that federal courts screen cases, such as
the instant one, “in which a prisoner seeks redress
from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a
governmental entity.” 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(a). Regarding such lawsuits, federal law
On review, the court shall identify cognizable claims or
dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if
the complaint -
(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted; or
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
complaint is frivolous “if it lacks an arguable basis
in law or fact.” Reeves v. Collins, 27 F.3d
174, 176 (5th Cir. 1994). In making a determination as to
whether a claim is frivolous, the Court has “not only
the authority to dismiss a claim based on an indisputably
meritless legal theory, but also the unusual power to pierce
the veil of the complaint's factual allegations and
dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly
baseless.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,
327 (1989); Macias v. Raul A. (Unknown), Badge No.
153, 23 F.3d 94, 97 (5th Cir. 1994).
complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted when the plaintiff does not “plead enough facts
to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.
Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief
above the speculative level, on the assumption that all the
allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in
fact).” In re Katrina ...