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 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).
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.
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).
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).
Law and Analysis
Fay's Complaint is subject to screening under 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(b) and 1915A.
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.
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).
Fay cannot state against the Lafayette Parish Sheriff or
Sheriff's Office, the Concordia Parish Sheriff, or the
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. ...