United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Alexandria Division
REGINALD T. MORRIS, Plaintiff
CONCORDIA PARISH CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, ET AL., Defendants
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
H.L. Perez-Montes, United States Magistrate Judge
the Court is the civil rights Complaint (42 U.S.C. §
1983) of pro se Plaintiff Reginald T. Morris
(“Morris”). (Docs. 1, 10, 11). Morris is a
pretrial detainee currently incarcerated at the Lafayette
Parish Correctional Center. At the time of filing suit,
Morris was housed at the Concordia Parish Correctional
Facility (“CPCF”) in Ferriday, Louisiana. Morris
complains that CPCF is not providing his vegetarian diet as
ordered by the chaplain and medical department. Morris seeks
compensatory and punitive damages, as well as injunctive
Morris is not entitled to compensatory or punitive damages,
and the request for injunctive relief is moot, his Complaint
(Docs. 1, 10, 11) should be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH
alleges that he does not eat meat for religious and health
reasons. He was prescribed a vegetarian diet, with eggs or
peanut butter as a substitute for meat. (Doc. 1, p. 3).
According to Morris, he did not regularly receive the
vegetarian diet or meat substitutes. Specifically, Morris was
not provided a vegetarian meal on the following dates: July
28 (breakfast), August 12 (lunch), August 14 (breakfast),
September 1 (breakfast), September 3 (lunch), September 9
(dinner), and October 3 (breakfast), 2018, as well as January
14, 2019 (no meat substitute). (Doc. 1, pp. 6-8). Morris
complains that he receives biscuits, grits, beans, and peanut
butter sandwiches rather than meat substitutes of eggs and
cheese. (Doc. 11, p. 2).
alleges that Defendant Angie asked two inmates to attack
Morris for complaining about his meals. (Doc. 1 p. 6).
Morris alleges that he was placed in lockdown for three days
for refusing a tray. (Doc. 11, p. 1).
seeks an award of $5 million dollars in compensatory and
punitive damages and a “restraining order against
Concordia Parish Correctional Facility” and all
Defendants. (Doc. 1, p. 9).
Law and Analysis
Morris's complaint is subject to screening under
§§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A.
is a prisoner who has been allowed to proceed in forma
pauperis. (Doc. 5). As a prisoner seeking redress from an
officer or employee of a governmental entity, Morris's
complaint is subject to preliminary screening pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A. See Martin v. Scott, 156 F.3d
578, 579-80 (5th Cir. 1998) (per curiam); Rosborough v.
Mgmt. and Training Corp., 350 F.3d 459, 461 (5th Cir.
2003) (holding that prison management corporations and their
employees are state actors under § 1983). Because he is
proceeding in forma pauperis, Morris's 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
complaint is frivolous when it “lacks an arguable basis
either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v.
Williams, 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. A 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); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009).
Morris's claim for compensatory damages should be
dismissed for failure ...