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.

Gottke v. Winn Correctional Center

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

February 27, 2019

BENJAMIN GOTTKE, Plaintiff
v.
WINN CORRECTIONAL CENTER, ET AL., Defendants

          DEE D. DRELL JUDGE

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

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

         Before the Court is a civil rights Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) filed by pro se Plaintiff Benjamin Gottke (#328995) (“Gottke”). Gottke is an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Corrections (“DOC”), incarcerated at the Dixon Correctional Center in Jackson, Louisiana. Gottke alleges that Defendants failed to protect him from an attack by another inmate at Winn Correctional Center (“WCC”) and failed to provide adequate medical care following the attack. (Docs. 1, 9). Gottke names as Defendants Winn Correctional Center, Inmate Green, Billy Tigner, and Warden Deville.

         Because Gottke fails to allege deliberate indifference by Defendants Deville and Tigner, and because WCC and Inmate Green cannot be sued under § 1983, Gottke's Complaint (Doc. 1) should be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

         I. Background

         Gottke alleges he engaged in a fight with another inmate while incarcerated at WCC. Gottke was seriously injured and rendered unconscious in the altercation.

         When Gottke woke up, he was in the hospital with a broken ankle and hip. (Doc. 1-2, p. 1). A few days later, Gottke's leg was amputated. Gottke claims he suffers pain as a result of his injuries. (Doc. 1).

         Gottke was ordered to amend his complaint to state the name of each person who allegedly violated Gottke's constitutional rights; a description of what actually occurred and what each Defendant specifically did to violate Gottke's rights; the place and date that each event occurred; and a description of the injury sustained as a result of each alleged violation. (Doc. 8).

         Gottke was further instructed to explain how each Defendant acted with deliberate indifference and failed to protect him. Gottke was ordered to provide facts indicating whether Defendants had any knowledge that Gottke faced a substantial risk of harm by inmate Green. (Doc. 8).

         Finally, Gottke was informed that, if he wished to pursue a claim for the deprivation of medical care, Gottke must state each date on which he requested medical care, what care he received, and what care was denied. Gottke was also instructed to state the name of each person that deprived him of medical care and what injuries, if any, he suffered as a result. (Doc. 8).

         In his Amended Complaint (Doc. 9), Gottke only names Warden Deville and Billy Tigner. However, Gottke does not provide any factual allegations of what either Defendant did to violate his rights.

         II. Law and Analysis

         A. Gottke's complaint is subject to screening under §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A.

         Gottke is a prisoner who has been allowed to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 7). As a prisoner seeking redress from an officer or employee of a governmental entity, Gottke'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, Gottke'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, ...


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.