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.

Smith v. Newton

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

October 31, 2018

MARTHA RUTH SMITH
v.
KAREN NEWTON, ET AL.

          JUDGE HICKS CHIEF

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          MARK L. HORNSBY U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         In accordance with the standing order of this court, this matter was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for review, report and recommendation.

         STATEMENT OF CLAIM

         Before the court is a civil rights complaint filed in forma pauperis by pro se plaintiff Martha Ruth Smith (“Plaintiff”), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This complaint was received and filed in this court on October 21, 2015. Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Caddo Correctional Center in Shreveport, Louisiana, when she filed this complaint. She names Karen Newton, Eddie Newton, Rolonda Stanley, Katrina Hunter, Courtney Young, Alex, Janice Hollier, Anthony Qualls, Judge Paul Young, III., and Bonnie as defendants.

         Plaintiff claims that on June 6, 2013, her three children moved in with Karen and Eddie Newton and she moved in with the father of her unborn child. She claims that on June 9, 2013, Karen Newton took her daughter H.S. to a forensic interview at the Gingerbread House with Alex because H.S. had been having nightmares.

         Plaintiff claims that on August 5, 2013, Detective Bell questioned her because Karen Newton made a complaint against her. She claims Karen and Eddie Newton alleged that H.S. was sexually abused when she lived with her.

         Plaintiff claims that on August 9, 2013, Karen Newton took H.S. to the Gingerbread House for counseling with Bonnie. Plaintiff claims that in September of 2013, the Gingerbread House employees refused to disclose any information to her.

         Plaintiff claims the Gingerbread House employees and state psychiatrist Janice Hollier placed H.S. under hypnosis, used reverse psychology, and played mind games with her to make her believe that she had been harmed by her. Plaintiff claims the state workers falsely claimed that H.S. was abused and raped while in her care. She claims H.S. was prescribed medication without a proper diagnosis and the medication caused her to be mentally challenged. She claims H.S. was also given mind controlling medications.

         Plaintiff claims she requested that H.S. be examined, and the forensic report determined that H.S. had not been raped. Plaintiff claims Judge Paul Young sealed the forensic report and all sessions at the Gingerbread House. Plaintiff claims her visitation with H.S. stopped on November 7, 2013.

         Plaintiff claims CPS Investigator Rolonda Stanley charged her with passive sexual abuse of her son D.S. and lack of adequate supervision. She claims Stanley reopened the case for CPS that the police had closed. She claims there was no new evidence to support the case being reopened.

         Plaintiff claims Rolonda Stanley also charged her with neglect and abuse of her children H.S. and M.S. She claims Stanley used the Gingerbread House Sessions with Alex and Bonnie and the records of Janice Hollier to charge her. She claims she was never questioned or interviewed.

         Plaintiff claims CPS Investigator Katrina Hunter charged her with lack of adequate supervision and neglect and/or abuse of her son C.S. She claims that on December 18, 2013, Hunter took C.S. from her two days after he was born because of alleged neglect and/or abuse.

         Plaintiff claims that on October 2, 2013, case worker Courtney Young presented a case plan that she had to follow to regain custody of her children. She claims that on September 4, 2014, Young lied under oath and stated that she did not comply with the case plan. Plaintiff claims that because of her alleged ...


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.