United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Monroe Division
A. DOUGHTY JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
L. HAYES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Romain Joseph, a prisoner at River Bend Detention Center,
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed the instant
proceeding on September 25, 2018');">8, under 42 U.S.C. §
198');">83. He names the following Defendants: City of Faith Half
Way House, Director Cathy Biedenharn, Co-Director Mr. Oneal,
Co-Director Mr. Banks, and Mr. Michael.[1" name="FN1" id="FN1">1] For reasons that
follow, it is recommended that Plaintiff's claims be
dismissed with prejudice.
alleges that, on April 23, 2018');">8, while he was being
transported from Elayn Hunt Correctional Center
(“EHCC”), the City of Faith transport vehicle in
which he was a passenger collided with another vehicle,
injuring his head, right knee, and left leg. [doc. # 1, p.
3]. Plaintiff claims that the vehicle's seatbelts were
damaged and inoperable prior to the collision. Id.
He faults Defendant Michael for “unsafe
operation.” [doc. # 8');">8, p. 5].
the collision, Plaintiff was transported back to EHCC, where
he did not receive any medical attention. He was transported
to University Health Conway the following day, but he claims
that, because he had no insurance, he “was not
examined” or “given a complete checkup.”
[doc. #s 1, p. 3; 8');">8, p. 4]. He seeks medical treatment and
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');">8
U.S.C. § 1915A. See Martin v. Scott, 156 F.3d
578');">8, 579-8');">80 (5th Cir.1998');">8) (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, 19');">490 U.S. 319, 325 (198');">89). 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');">8
(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.
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, 7 F.3d 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).
hearing need not be conducted for every pro se complaint.
Wilson v. Barrientos, 8');">80');">926 F.2d 48');">80, 48');">83 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, 78');">88');">8 F.2d
1116, 1120 (5th Cir. 198');">86).