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.

Perot v. Deville

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

August 27, 2018

JEREMY PEROT, Plaintiff
v.
KEITH DEVILLE, ET AL., Defendants

          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 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).

         Because Perot cannot establish that Defendants violated his constitutional rights, his complaint should be dismissed.

         I. Background

         Perot 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).

         Perot 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).

         II. Law and Analysis

         A. Perot's complaint is subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A.

         Perot 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.

         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. Perot has not alleged deliberate indifference.

         Prison 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. at 839-40.

         Perot 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. ...


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.