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.

Fay v. Concordia Parish Correctional Facility

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

March 11, 2019

PATRICK FAY, Plaintiff
v.
CONCORDIA PARISH CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, ET AL., Defendants

         SEC. P

          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 filed by pro se Plaintiff Patrick Fay (“Fay”). (Doc. 1). Fay is a pretrial detainee at the Concordia Parish Correctional Facility (“CPCF”) in Ferriday, Louisiana. Fay complains that Defendants failed to protect him from an assault by convicted inmates, and he was denied medical care following the attack. Fay names as Defendants CPCF, Warden Lance Moore, the Concordia Parish Sheriff, Officer Patrick Haile, the Lafayette Parish Sheriff's Office, Sheriff Mark Garber, and the Lafayette Parish Correctional Center (“LPCC”) Warden. (Doc. 6, p. 3; Doc. 12, p. 3).

         Because Fay fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted against CPCF, the Lafayette Parish Sheriff's Office, Sheriff Garber, the Concordia Parish Sheriff, or the LPCC Warden, Fay's claims against those Defendants should be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

         I. Background

         Fay alleges that he was attacked by three inmates who are in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Corrections (“DOC”). The inmates beat him with a bar of soap inside of a sock, resulting in the loss of four teeth. (Doc. 6, p. 3). Fay alleges that Officer Patrick Haile watched the attack but did not intervene and waited until the attack was over before he radioed for assistance. (Doc. 11, p. 1). Fay alleges that his requests for medical care have been denied by the CPCF warden. (Doc. 11).

         Fay complains that the Lafayette Parish Sheriff and/or Sheriff's Office and LPCC Warden are liable for transferring him to CPCF. (Doc. 12, p. 3).

         II. Law and Analysis

         A. Fay's Complaint is subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(b) and 1915A.

         Fay is a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis. (Doc. 9). As a prisoner seeking redress from an officer or employee of a governmental entity, Fay's Complaint is subject to preliminary screening pursuant to § 1915A. See Martin v. Scott, 156 F.3d 578, 579-80 (5th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). Because he is proceeding in forma pauperis, Fay'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 a 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 such relief.

         A 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).

         B. Fay cannot state against the Lafayette Parish Sheriff or Sheriff's Office, the Concordia Parish Sheriff, or the LPCC Warden.

         Fay alleges that he was transferred to CPCF by the Lafayette Parish Sheriff and LPCC Warden. Since Fay was attacked at CPCF, he claims that the Lafayette Parish Sheriff and/or Sheriff's Office and LPCC Warden are liable for his injuries. To the extent Fay names the Lafayette Parish Sheriff's Office as a Defendant, his claim fails. The State of Louisiana does not grant legal status to any parish sheriff's office. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Grant Parish Sheriff's Dep't, 350 So.2d 236 (La.Ct. App. 1977), writ refused, 352 So.2d 235 (La. ...


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.