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.

Edwards v. James

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

February 4, 2019

MORRIS EDWARDS
v.
MELLISSA JAMES

         SECTION P

          S. MAURICE HICKS, JR. JUDGE

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          KAREN L. HAYES MAG. JUDGE

         Plaintiff Morris Edwards, a prisoner at Claiborne Parish Detention Center proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed the instant proceeding on January 1');">18, 201');">19, under 42 U.S.C. § 1');">1983. He names Detective Mellissa James as Defendant.[1');">1" name="FN1');">1" id= "FN1');">1">1');">1] For the following reasons, it is recommended that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed.

         Background

         Plaintiff alleges that, on March 23, 201');">17, Detective Mellissa James “charge[d]” him, without probable cause, with two counts of simple burglary for burglarizing Brewniverse and Superior Bar and Grill. [doc. # 1');">1, p. 3]. He indicates that he was already incarcerated for either a previous conviction or for other pending, yet related, charges. Id. at 4.

         At an April 1');">12, 201');">17 preliminary examination, a state trial judge found no probable cause to charge Plaintiff for the two burglaries. Id. According to Plaintiff, Defendant testified at the preliminary hearing that she did not conduct a lineup, that surveillance video did not clearly depict Defendant, that she did not obtain fingerprints, that she was not aware of any witnesses, and that she could not identify a suspect if the suspect's face was covered. Id. at 4. Plaintiff adds that Defendant never questioned him and, moreover, that she fabricated allegations in a “report” because she wanted Plaintiff to serve more time in prison. Id. Plaintiff asks the Court to terminate Defendant's employment and to award $1');">12, 000, 000.00 for his pain, suffering, anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life. Id. at 5.

         Law and Analysis

         1');">1. Preliminary Screening

          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 U.S.C. § 1');">191');">15A.[2] See Martin v. Scott, 1');">156 F.3d 578, 579-80 (5th Cir. 1');">1998) (per curiam). Because he is proceeding in forma pauperis, his Complaint is also subject to screening under § 1');">191');">15(e)(2). Both § 1');">191');">15(e)(2)(B) and § 1');">191');">15A(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 on 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, 1');">19');">490 U.S. 31');">19, 325 (1');">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.

         A 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, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); accord Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Likewise, 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. Of course, in making this determination, the court must assume that all of the plaintiff's factual allegations are true. Bradley v. Puckett, 1');">157 F.3d 1');">1022');">1');">157 F.3d 1');">1022, 1');">1025 (5th Cir. 1');">1998).

         A civil 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, 1');">1427');">47 F.3d 1');">1427, 1');">1433 (5th Cir. 1');">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. 1');">153, 23 F.3d 94, 97 (5th Cir. 1');">1994).

         A hearing need not be conducted for every pro se complaint. Wilson v. Barrientos, 926 F.2d 480, 483 n.4 (5th Cir. 1');">1991');">1). A district court may dismiss a prisoner's civil rights complaint as frivolous based upon the complaint and exhibits alone. Green v. ...


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.