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.

Taylor v. Police Dept. of Shreveport

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

October 15, 2018

EMILIO ENRIQUE TAYLOR
v.
POLICE DEPT. OF SHREVEPORT

         SECTION P

          TERRY A. DOUGHTY MAG. JUDGE

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          KAREN L. HAYES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff Emilio Enrique Taylor, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this proceeding on October 2, 2018, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He names the Shreveport Police Department as Defendant.[1" name="FN1" id= "FN1">1] For the following reasons, it is recommended that Plaintiff's claims be dismissed with prejudice.

         Background

         Plaintiff was arrested and charged with several crimes, including attempted second degree murder, armed robbery, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, relating to a shooting that occurred in December of 2017.[2] [doc. # 5, pp. 2-6]. Plaintiff alleges that, on July 17, 2018, Detective C.S. Heard committed perjury when he described Plaintiff's actions as malicious and testified that the “incident took place in [an] alley and not in [Plaintiff's] backyard.” [doc. # 1, pp. 3-4]. He alleges further that the Shreveport Police Department “intentionally used” Detective Heard, “the only officer that gave false testimony, ” as its witness. Plaintiff seeks $2, 000, 000.00, and he asks the Court to dismiss all of his charges. Id. at 5.

         Law and Analysis

         1. Preliminary Screening

         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.[3] 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.

         A complaint is frivolous when it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 19');">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.

         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');">550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); accord Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662');">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');">157 F.3d 1022, 1025 (5th Cir. 1998).

         A civil 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, 1427');">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).

         A 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 and exhibits alone. Green v. McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1116, 1120 (5th Cir. 1986).

         2. Entity Not ...


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.