Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Davis v. Fuller

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

April 17, 2019


         SECTION P



          Karen L. Hayes, United States Magistrate Judge.

         Plaintiff Dennis Ray Davis, Jr., a prisoner at Caddo Correctional Center proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed the instant proceeding on October 24, 20');">20');">20');">201');">18, under 42 U.S.C. § 1');">1983. He names Nicole Fuller, Consuelo Lawrence Fuller, Caddo Correctional Center, Warden Robert Wyche, Program Director Mrs. Fradue, Sergeant Hayes, Sergeant Carlos Walker, Captain Raborn, ERT Morrison, ERT Richardson, Caddo Parish Clerk of Court, Mike Spence, Famon Blaney, Karen Greer McGee, Dianne Doughty, and Dorothy J. Oliver as Defendants.[1');">1" name="FN1');">1" id= "FN1');">1">1');">1] For reasons that follow, Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed.


         Plaintiff presents vague and disjointed allegations. In his first two pleadings, he alleges that Deputy Nicole Fuller engages in retaliation by reading his “legal papers, ” preventing him from using the law library, and, without cause, directing others to “tazer” him. [doc. # 1');">1, p. 3]. He also alleges, without elaborating or identifying a responsible actor, “failure to intervene.” [doc. # 6');">6, p. 2]. He alleges further that Caddo Correctional Center kidnaped and falsely imprisoned him on August 3, 20');">20');">20');">201');">16');">6, following his fourth driving-while-intoxicated (“D.W.I.”) conviction. [doc. # 1');">1, pp. 3-4]. He claims that the conviction constituted double jeopardy. Id.

         In his third pleading, Plaintiff reiterates his false imprisonment claim and alleges that all named defendants are responsible. [doc. # 20');">20');">20');">20, p. 7]. In addition, he claims the following:

6');">675; The Caddo Parish Sheriff's Office, the Caddo Parish District Attorney, the Caddo Parish Clerk of Court, and the Second Circuit Court of Appeal conspired against him;[2]
6');">675; Caddo Correctional Center falsely imprisoned him by failing to secure his “prompt appearance” in court and failing to address his grievances about bail;[3]
6');">675; Caddo Correctional Center placed “false holds in the records department to help aid the Caddo D.A.'s Office”;[4]
6');">675; Captain Raborn, Deputy Fuller, Mrs. Fradue, and Warden Robert Wyche deprived him of access to court, access to a copy machine, and access to a telephone, rendering him unable to litigate his pending state court case;[5]
6');">675; Caddo Correctional Center, Warden Robert Wyche, Captain Raborn, and Sergeant Jhon Children failed to certify or correct records of a May 5, 20');">20');">20');">201');">16');">6 plea agreement in which Plaintiff pled guilty to a second D.W.I.;[6');">6" name="FN6');">6" id="FN6');">6">6');">6]
6');">675; Plaintiff was falsely imprisoned on August 5, 20');">20');">20');">201');">16');">6, because he could not “post bail”;[7]
6');">675; Sergeant Hayes, Sergeant Walker, and Captain Raborn interfere with Plaintiff's “legal defense in state court . . . by strip searching” him thrice each day and by seizing his “legal documents, envelopes, pens, [and] papers”;[8]
6');">675; Mrs. Fradue reads Plaintiff's legal documents “in retaliation for filing [a] civil action against Deputy Fuller” and places Plaintiff “on the law library list once every 30 days for only 30 minutes or less”;[9] and" Deputy Famon Blaney conspired with the Caddo Parish Clerk of Court to alter the descriptions and outcomes of filings in a state court proceeding relating to Plaintiff's May 5, 20');">20');">20');">201');">16');">6 sentence.[1');">10" name="FN1');">10" id= "FN1');">10">1');">10]

         Plaintiff attaches exhibits relating to his alleged August 3, 20');">20');">20');">201');">16');">6 false imprisonment, his inability to “post bail, ” his second D.W.I., his fourth D.W.I., and his state court proceedings with docket numbers 32921');">14, 341');">1453, 342728, and 3391');">179. [doc. # 20');">20');">20');">20-1');">1, pp. 2-3, 1');">11');">1-1');">16');">6].

         Reciting a litany of improprieties and errors, Plaintiff's primary concern (from what the undersigned can glean) is that his fourth D.W.I. conviction amounted to double jeopardy and that his current confinement therefore constitutes false imprisonment.

         Plaintiff seeks punitive damages, compensatory relief, and release from incarceration. [doc. # 1');">1, p. 4].

         Law and Analysis

         1');">1. Preliminary Screening

         Plaintiff is a prisoner who has been permitted to proceed in forma pauperis. As a prisoner seeking redress from an officer or employee of a governmental entity, his complaint is subject to preliminary screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1');">191');">15A.[1');">11');">1" name="FN1');">11');">1" id= "FN1');">11');">1">1');">11');">1] See Martin v. Scott, 1');">156');">6 F.3d 578, 579-80 (5th Cir. 1');">1998) (per curiam). Because he is proceeding in forma pauperis, his Complaint is also subject to screening under § 1');">191');">15(e)(2). Both § 1');">191');">15(e)(2)(B) and § 1');">191');">15A(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 on 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, 1');">19');">490 U.S. 31');">19, 325 (1');">1989). A claim lacks an arguable basis in law when it is “based on an indisputably meritless legal theory.” Id. at 327. Courts are also afforded the unusual power to pierce the veil of the factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless. Id.

         A complaint fails to state a claim on 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 (20');">20');">20');">2007); accord Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 6');">6 U.S. 6');">66');">62');">556');">6 U.S. 6');">66');">62, 6');">678 (20');">20');">20');">2009). A claim is facially plausible when it contains sufficient factual content for the court “to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556');">6 U.S. at 6');">678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). Plausibility does not equate to possibility or probability; it lies somewhere in between. Id. Plausibility simply calls for enough factual allegations to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence to support the elements of the claim. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556');">6.

         Assessing whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief is a “context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Iqbal, supra. A well-pled complaint may proceed even if it strikes the court that actual proof ...

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.