United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Monroe Division
A. DOUGHTY JUDGE.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
L. Hayes United States Magistrate Judge.
Kennith Wade Anthony, a prisoner at Winn Correctional Center
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed the instant
proceeding on March 25, 2019, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He
names Warden Isaac Brown and Kathy Harrell as
Defendants.[1" name="FN1" id=
"FN1">1] For the following reasons, the Court
should dismiss Plaintiff's claims.
alleges that Defendant Kathy Harrell only deposited $20.00 of
the $40.00 that he received via a money order on either
September 12, 2018, or September 20, 2018. [doc. #s 1, p. 3;
7');">7, 1');">p. 1]. After speaking with Warden Brown about the missing
$20.00, Brown instructed Plaintiff to contact Harrell. [doc.
# 1, p. 3]. Plaintiff wrote Harrell a request, but he never
received a response. Id.
spoke with Brown about the missing funds again, but Brown
"made no effort to investigate Plaintiff's
complaint." [doc. #s 1, p. 3; 7');">7, 1');">p. 1]. Thereafter,
Plaintiff was placed “in lockdown for filing a
grievance about this and other matters[, ]” and he
remained there for two weeks before he was transferred to
another facility. [doc. # 1, p. 3]. Plaintiff seeks
compensatory damages "for the abuse of discretion on the
[sic] behalf of the administration." [doc. # 7');">7, p. 2].
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.
§ 1915A. See Martin v. Scott, 156 F.3d
57');">78, 57');">79-80 (5th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). Because he
is proceeding in forma pauperis, his 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, 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.
complaint is frivolous when it “lacks an arguable basis
either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v.
Williams, 19');">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');">7. 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.
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, 57');">70
(2007');">7); accord Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 67');">78
(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 U.S. at 67');">78
(citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 57');">70). 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.
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.
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's factual
allegations are true. Bradley v. Puckett, 157');">7 F.3d
1022, 1025 (5th Cir. 1998). 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's
Pride Corp, 148');">632 F.3d 148, 152-53 (5th Cir. 2010). Courts
are “not ...