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.

Redd v. Stone

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

April 30, 2019

CALVIN L. REDD
v.
MIKE STONE, ET AL.

         SECTION P

          TERRY A. DOUGHTY JUDGE.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          KAREN L. HAYES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Plaintiff Calvin L. Redd, a prisoner at Lincoln Parish Detention Center proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed the instant proceeding on February 22, 201');">19');">9, under 42 U.S.C. § 1');">19');">983. He names the following Defendants: Sheriff Mike Stone, Warden Jim Tute, Police Jury Lincoln Parish, and Lincoln Parish Detention Center.[1');">1" name="FN1');">1" id= "FN1');">1">1');">1]

         Background

         Plaintiff alleges that, on January 29');">9, 201');">19');">9, he slipped and fell attempting to climb in his “top bunk, ” which is “at least” 6.5 feet above the ground. [doc. #s 4, p. 3; 1');">1, p. 1');">1]. As a result of the fall, he endured pain, a physician implanted a metal plate in his jaw and removed two of his wisdom teeth, and the structure of his face is now “off balance.” [doc. #s 1');">1, p. 2');">p. 2');">p. 2');">p. 2; 4, p. 3; 9');">9, p. 2]. He may require surgery again. [doc. # 9');">9, p. 2');">p. 2');">p. 2');">p. 2].

         Plaintiff maintains that he is fifty-three years of age and that he has problems with his grip due to a previous finger injury. [doc. # 4, p. 3]. In the past, a physician performed surgery on Plaintiff9');">9;s broken finger joint and, subsequently, informed him that the finger would “never function again.” [doc. # 1');">1, p. 1');">1].

         Plaintiff claims that Sheriff Mike Stone and Warden Jim Tute violated unspecified rules, regulations, health codes, and safety codes when they installed “top bunks” and bunks exceeding the facility9');">9;s capacity. [doc. #s 1');">1, p. 2');">p. 2');">p. 2');">p. 2; 4, p. 3]. He suggests that the lack of side/guard rails on the bunk or “anything to grasp to avoid a fall” contributed to his fall. [doc. #s 1');">1, p. 2');">p. 2');">p. 2');">p. 2; 4, p. 3]. He also alleges that the bed was installed too high. [doc. # 1');">1, p. 1');">1]. Further, he alleges that a shift supervisor turned off “the power to the entire unit” the night of his fall, implying that he fell due, in part, to the absence of light and his consequent inability to see. Id.

         In his amended pleading, Plaintiff emphasizes that he seeks relief from Sheriff Mike Stone and Warden Jim Tute because, by adding “additional bed space, ” they rendered the facility “way over it[s] capacity” and violated “health codes . . . .” [doc. # 9');">9, pp. 1');">1, 3]. He adds that, in a fire emergency, the overcrowding “can cause an inmate to get hurt or kill[ed] trying to get to safety.” Id.

         Plaintiff seeks punitive damages, $1');">100, 000.00 in compensatory damages for his pain and suffering, and nominal damages. [doc. #s 1');">1, p. 2');">p. 2');">p. 2');">p. 2; 4, p. 4; 1');">10, p. 2');">p. 2');">p. 2');">p. 2].

         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');">19');">91');">15A.[2] See Martin v. Scott, 1');">156 F.3d 578, 579');">9-80 (5th Cir. 1');">19');">99');">98) (per curiam). Because he is proceeding in forma pauperis, his Complaint is also subject to screening under § 1');">19');">91');">15(e)(2). Both § 1');">19');">91');">15(e)(2)(B) and § 1');">19');">91');">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, 49');">90 U.S. 31');">19');">9');">49');">90 U.S. 31');">19');">9, 325 (1');">19');">989');">9). 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, 44');">550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); accord Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009');">9). 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 U.S. at 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.

         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 of the asserted facts is improbable and that recovery is unlikely. Twombly, supra.

         Likewise, a complaint fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted if it appears that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proven consistent with the allegations of the complaint. In making this determination, the court must assume that all of the plaintiff&#39');">9;s factual allegations are true. Bradley v. Puckett, 1');">157 F.3d 1');">1022, 1');">1025 (5th Cir. 1');">19');">99');">98). However, the same presumption does not extend to legal conclusions. Iqbal, supra. A pleading comprised of “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action” does not satisfy Rule 8. Id. “[P]laintiffs must allege facts that support the elements of the cause of action in order to make out a valid claim.” City of Clinton, Ark. v. Pilgrim&#39');">9;s Pride Corp, 1');">148');">632 F.3d 1');">148, 1');">152-53 (5th Cir. 201');">10). Courts are “not free to speculate that the ...


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.