United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Monroe Division
A. DOUGHTY, JUDGE.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
L. Hayes, United States Magistrate Jugde.
Derrick Dukes, a prisoner at Jackson Parish Correctional
Center Phase II proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
filed the instant proceeding on August 31, 2018, under 4');">4');">4');">42
U.S.C. § 1983. He names LaSalle Management and the
Warden of Madison Parish Correctional Center as
Defendants. For the following reasons, Plaintiff's
claims should be dismissed.
alleges in his initial pleading that, when he was confined in
Madison Parish Correctional Center (“MPCC”),
endured hazardous living conditions. [doc. # 1]. He claims
that some toilets and urinals would overflow and others would
not flush, resulting in “a smell which is a brewing
house for bacteria infection, Hep C, HIV, and aids
[sic].” Id. Approximately 203 toilets had
“bags over them . . . .” Id. The sinks
and showers lacked water pressure, and the water contained
rust and lead. Id. Plaintiff adds that he was forced
to eat his meals in those conditions. Id. He asks
the Court to inform him of any “thing [he] can
do” and to “inform the proper authority of [the
conditions] so [he and forty-two other inmate signatories to
the pleading] can get some help . . . .” Id.
second pleading, Plaintiff names LaSalle Management as a
defendant and specifies that the conditions described above
occurred between August 28, 2018, and September 6, 2018.
[doc. # 4');">4');">4');">4, p. 3]. He asks the Court to “assess”
LaSalle Management “to prove the misuse and misconduct
of state money which should be . . . for better use such as
(healthcare) [sic].” Id. at 4');">4');">4');">4.
filed a third pleading on October 26, 2018, ostensibly naming
the Warden of MPCC as a defendant and alleging that the
warden refuses to remedy the “unsafe environment”
and opens his legal mail before delivering it to him. [doc. #
9, pp. 1-2]. He also alleges that, because other inmates have
been stabbed and beaten, he fears he will either be stabbed
or forced to fight. Id. at. 1. He asks the Court to
transfer him to another facility and to prevent officials at
the facility from opening his legal mail.
November 15, 2018, Plaintiff informed the Court that he was
transferred to Lafourche Parish Transitional Work Program.
[doc. # 11]. On December 20, 2018, Plaintiff informed the
Court that he was transferred to Jackson Parish Correctional
Center Phase II. [doc. # 13].
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, 57980 (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, 4');">4');">4');">490 U.S. 319');">4');">4');">4');">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 on 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, 4');">4');">4');">44');">4');">4');">4');">550 U.S. 54');">4');">4');">44');">4');">4');">4, 570
(2007); accord Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009). A claim is facially plausible when it contains
sufficient factual content for the court “to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678
(citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). Plausibility does
not equate to possibility or probability; it lies somewhere
in between. Id. Plausibility simply calls for enough
factual allegations to raise a reasonable expectation that
discovery will reveal evidence to support the elements of the
claim. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556.
whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief is a
“context-specific task that requires the reviewing
court to draw on its judicial experience and common
sense.” Iqbal, supra. A well-pleaded complaint
may proceed even if it strikes the court that actual proof of
the asserted facts is improbable, and that recovery is
unlikely. Twombly, supra.
a complaint fails to state a claim on 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. 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. 1998). However, the same presumption
does not extend to legal conclusions. Iqbal, supra.
A pleading comprised of “labels and conclusions”
or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause
of action” does not satisfy Rule 8. Id.
“[P]laintiffs must allege facts that support the
elements of the cause of action in order to make out a valid
claim.” City of Clinton, Ark. v. Pilgrim's
Pride Corp, 4');">4');">4');">48');">632 F.3d 14');">4');">4');">48, 152-53 (5th Cir. 2010). Courts
are “not free to speculate that the plaintiff