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 Jeremy Perot (“Perot”)
(#576094). Perot is an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana
Department of Corrections, incarcerated at the David Wade
Correctional Center in Homer, Louisiana. Perot complains that
Defendants failed to protect him from harm inflicted by other
inmates when he was incarcerated at Winn Correctional Center
(“WCC”) in Winnfield, Louisiana. (Docs. 1, 9-2).
Perot cannot establish that Defendants violated his
constitutional rights, his complaint should be dismissed.
alleges he was stabbed in his sleep at WCC. (Doc. 1 p. 3).
Perot tried to fight off the attacker, then ran to the bars
to call for help. Eventually, Perot saw Lt. Flowers, who
removed Perot from the tier. (Doc. 1, p. 3). Perot was
transported to the hospital for treatment. (Doc. 1, p. 3).
was later informed that the “camera system did not
work.” (Doc. 1, p. 3). Perot complains that, had the
cameras been working, they would have captured his call for
help, and someone would have responded quicker. (Doc. 1, p.
3). Perot also complains that officers make rounds roughly
every 45 minutes. (Doc. 1, p. 3). Perot concludes that, had
officers made rounds more frequently, his injuries would have
been minimized. (Doc. 1, p. 3).
Law and Analysis
Perot's complaint is subject to screening under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A.
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, Perot'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, Perot'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).
Perot has not alleged deliberate
officials have a constitutional duty to protect prisoners
from violence at the hands of their fellow inmates. See
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832-33 (1994). Prison
officials are not, however, expected to prevent all
inmate-on-inmate violence. Id. at 834. Prison
officials can be held liable for their failure to protect an
inmate only when they are deliberately indifferent to a
substantial risk of serious harm. See id. A prison
official is deliberately indifferent if he knows of an
“excessive risk to inmate health or safety” and
disregards that risk. Id. at 837. A prison official
“knows of” an excessive risk only if: (1) he is
aware of facts from which he could infer “that a
substantial risk of serious harm exists;” and, (2) he
“draw[s] the inference.” Id. In other
words, in order to be deliberately indifferent, a prison
official must be subjectively aware of the risk. Id.
does not allege that, prior to the attack, any Defendant was
aware of facts that would infer Perot was going to be harmed.
There is no suggestion that any Defendant was aware of an
excessive risk to Perot's safety prior to the attack. In
fact, Perot was not even aware of a risk to his safety. ...