United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Alexandria Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
H.L. PEREZ-MONTES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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.
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.
alleges he engaged in a fight with another inmate while
incarcerated at WCC. Gottke was seriously injured and
rendered unconscious in the altercation.
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).
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).
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).
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).
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
Law and Analysis
Gottke'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. 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, ...