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.

Williams v. Cole

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

October 22, 2018

TERENCE B. WILLIAMS
v.
J.S. COLE, ET AL.

         SECTION P

          JUDGE S. MAURICE HICKS, JR.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          KAREN L. HAYES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff Terence B. Williams, who proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis, filed the instant Complaint on August 28, 2018, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He names the following Defendants: Officer J.S. Cole, Officer C.D. Rose, Officer D. Snyder, Officer Q. Jenkins, Officer A. James, Officer J.P. Saiz, and “Shreveport Police.”[1" name="FN1" id="FN1">1]

         Background

         Plaintiff alleges that, on August 27, 2017, at approximately 11:55 p.m., officers with the Shreveport Police Department knocked on his motel room door. [doc. # 6');">6, 1');">p. 1]. Plaintiff removed a loaded clip from his firearm, “pulled the chamber back” to ensure there were no rounds in the chamber, opened the door wide enough to reveal his firearm to the officers, “ease[d]” the firearm out of the door, closed the door, and rushed to put pants on. Id. Before Plaintiff returned to open the door, officers entered the motel room “without just cause” using “management's key.” [doc. #s 1, p. 3; 6');">6, p. 1].

         Although Plaintiff “offered no resistance and attempted to comply with their directions, ” officers utilized excessive force. [doc. # 1, p. 3]. When Officer Snyder entered the room, he tackled Plaintiff and beat him with closed fists. [doc. # 6');">6, 1');">p. 1]. Officer Cole, too, began beating Plaintiff. Id. Officer Rose rushed to Plaintiff's right side and shocked him with a Taser. Id. Plaintiff pulled the Taser prongs from his arm, and Officer Rose deployed a second Taser. Id. When Plaintiff removed the second Taser prongs, Officer Rose hit him with elbow and knee strikes. Id. Officers Jenkins and James arrived, and they too began beating Plaintiff. Id. Officer Saiz stood on Plaintiff's feet while Officer Snyder attempted to handcuff Plaintiff. Id.

         Plaintiff maintains that the officers injured his eye, nose, mouth, ribs, legs, back, hips, and knees, leaving him with limited mobility and causing him to perform poorly at work. Id. Following his arrest, he received care in a medical ward for two days and, thereafter, in a health ward for approximately two weeks. Id. at 2. He continues to receive treatment for his injuries. Id. He seeks compensation for the “inconveniences” he incurred, and continues to incur, as a result of his injuries. Id.

         Plaintiff was detained in Caddo Correctional Center on August 28, 2017. Id. He was charged with battery of a police officer, disarming a peace officer, resisting an officer, and damage to property. Telephone Calls to Caddo Parish District Attorney and Caddo Parish Clerk of Court, October 18, 2018; [doc. # 1, p. 3]. On July 25, 2018, a jury convicted him of resisting an officer and found him not guilty of attempting to disarm an officer.[2] Id. He was released from incarceration on July 26');">6, 2018, for “time served.” [doc. # 6');">6, p. 2].

         Plaintiff, however, alleges that he “was not guilty of any form of resistance, ” claiming that he was a victim of malicious prosecution and false arrest. Id. He asks the Court to overturn his conviction. [doc. #s 1, p. 4; 6');">6, p. 2].

         Law and Analysis

         1. Preliminary Screening

         Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, his Complaint is subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which provides 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 ...


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.