United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Monroe Division
LARRY J. FITCH
KEVIN W. COBB, ET AL.
A. DOUGHTY JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
L. HAYES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Larry J. Fitch, an inmate at Franklin Parish Detention Center
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed the instant
Complaint on July 11, 2018, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He
names the following Defendants: Sheriff Kevin W. Cobb, Deputy
Jerry Rollins, Danna Lee, and Warden Chad Lee. For the following
reasons, it is recommended that Plaintiff's claims be
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Plaintiff alleges that, on April 18, 2018, while he was being
transferred to a court in Terrebonne Parish, Deputy Jerry
Rollins attempted to park the transport vehicle to address a
“noise coming from the [vehicle's] cage
divider.” “Deputy Jerry Rollins pulled to the
shoulder . . . and began to exit the vehicle, [but he]
collapsed for some unknown reason.” Plaintiff
“assume[s] Deputy Jerry Rollins failed to put the
vehicle in park because, ” while Plaintiff was still
inside, the vehicle crashed into a ditch.
filed an Amended Complaint on August 17, 2018, claiming that
officials at the detention center opened his legal mail in
his absence. [doc. # 17].
seeks $50, 000.00 for his pain and suffering, reimbursement
for his medical bills, and an order instructing Defendants to
pay for further medical treatment by a specialist.
is a prisoner who has been permitted to proceed in forma
pauperis. As a prisoner seeking redress from an
officer or employee of a governmental entity, his 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). Because he
is proceeding in forma pauperis, his 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. Courts are also afforded the unusual power to pierce the
veil of the factual allegations and dismiss those claims
whose factual contentions are clearly baseless. Id.
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); accord Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009). Likewise, a complaint fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted if it appears that no relief
could be granted under any set of facts that could be proven
consistent with the allegations of the complaint. Of course,
in making this determination, the court must assume that all
of the plaintiff's factual allegations are true.
Bradley v. Puckett, 157 F.3d 1022, 1025 (5th Cir.
rights plaintiff must support his claims with specific facts
demonstrating a constitutional deprivation and may not simply
rely on conclusory allegations. Ashcroft, 556 U.S.
at 662; Schultea v. Wood, 47 F.3d 1427, 1433 (5th
Cir. 1995). Nevertheless, a district court is bound by the
allegations in a plaintiff's complaint and is “not
free to speculate that the plaintiff ‘might' be
able to state a claim if given yet another ...