United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Monroe Division
A. DOUGHTY JUDGE.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
L. HAYES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Otis Hall, who proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis, filed
the instant Complaint on August 24, 2018, under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. He names the following Defendants: Judge
Creigler, Probation Officer Carolyn Guice, District Attorney
Edwin Moberly, and Judge Lancaster. For the following reasons,
it is recommended that Plaintiff's claims be dismissed
alleges that he has been detained since June 22, 2018,
without being apprised of the crimes with which he is
charged. He does, however, mention that he was
“pick[ed] . . . up” for failing to appear in
court. He also claims, impliedly, that he has been imprisoned
beyond the usual 30-day sentence imposed for missing a court
implies further that Probation Officer Carolyn Guice played a
role in his arrest because he owes her money. He suggests
that Officer Guice had no reason to be involved because he
has “been off of probation for almost five
seeks $3, 000, 000.00 from each Defendant for his pain,
suffering, and mental anguish.
Plaintiff 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 opportunity to add
more facts to the complaint.” Macias v. Raul A.
(Unknown) Badge No. 153, 23 F.3d 94, 97 (5th Cir. 1994).
hearing need not be conducted for every pro se complaint.
Wilson v. Barrientos, 926 F.2d 480, 483 n.4 (5th
Cir. 1991). A district court may dismiss a prisoner's
civil rights complaint as frivolous based upon the complaint