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.

Means v. Stephen

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

January 31, 2019

GREGORY LAMONT MEANS
v.
MITCHEL STEPHEN, et al.

          DRELL JUDGE

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          JOSEPH H.L. PEREZ-MONTES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Defendants filed an unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 23). Because Plaintiff Gregory Lamont Means (“Means”) failed to state a claim cognizable under §1983 for verbal abuse or for violations of the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, 34 U.S.C. § 30301, et seq. and 28 C.F.R. § 115.5, et seq. (“PREA”), and failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to his claim of excessive force, Defendants' Motion should be GRANTED and Means' action should be DISMISSED.

         I. Background

         Means filed a pro se civil rights complaint (Docs. 1, 8), in forma pauperis, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The named defendants are Seargent Mitchell Stephen (“Stephen”), Captain William Eastering (“Eastering”), Lieutenant Sammy Lemoine (“Sammy Lemoine”), Seargent Shannon Lemoine (“Shannon Lemoine”), Seargent Johnson (“Johnson”), and Captain Myers (“Myers”), all of whom are employed at the Raymond Laborde Correctional Center (“RLCC”) in Cottonport, Louisiana.

         Means appears to make three claims in his complaint. Means contends that, in January 2018: (1) Defendants used excessive force against him (maced, slapped, stomped, kicked, and punched him); (2) Defendants verbally abused him; and (3) Defendants prevented him from filing a grievance concerning a sexual assault pursuant to the PREA. Means seeks monetary damages. Means is presently incarcerated at RLCC.

         Defendants answered the complaint (Docs. 18, 19) and filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 23). Means did not respond to that Motion.

         A. Standards governing the Motion for Summary Judgment generally.

         Under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court must grant summary judgment “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Paragraph (e) of Rule 56 also provides the following:

         If a party fails to properly support an assertion of fact or fails to properly address another party's assertion of fact as required by Rule 56(c), the court may:

(1) give an opportunity to properly support or address the fact;
(2) consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion;
(3) grant summary judgment if the motion and supporting materials--including the facts considered undisputed--show that ...

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.