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 Joshua Keaton Barber
(“Barber”). Barber is a pretrial detainee at the
Caddo Correctional Center in Shreveport, Louisiana. Barber
complains he was subjected to excessive force by an officer
at the Jefferson Davis Parish Jail, and that officers at the
Concordia Parish Correctional Facility (“CPCF”)
failed to protect him from harm inflicted by other inmates.
Barber cannot state a claim under § 1983, Barber's
Complaint and Amended Complaint (Docs. 1, 23) should be
DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE under §
1915(e)(2)(b) and § 1915A.
alleges that he was threatened with a knife by Officer Lanier
at the Jefferson Davis Parish Jail. Barber also claims that
Officer Lanier cut his shirt with the knife. (Doc. 1, p. 3).
alleges that he was attacked by other inmates at CPCF. (Doc.
1, p. 4). At some point, Barber was transferred or released.
(Doc. 1-2, p. 1). However, after being transferred back to
CPCF, Barber was attacked by other inmates. (Doc. 1, p. 4;
Doc. 1-2, p. 1).
was ordered to amend his Complaint to provide additional
information regarding his claims. Barber filed an Amended
Complaint in which he moves to dismiss his claims against
CPCF, Warden Moore, and Chief Byrnes, and to proceed only
with the incident involving Officer Lanier. (Doc. 23).
Law and Analysis
Barber's Complaint is subject to screening under
§§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A.
is an inmate who has been allowed to proceed in forma
pauperis. (Doc. 8). As a prisoner seeking redress from an
officer or employee of a governmental entity, Barber's
Complaint is subject to preliminary screening pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A. See Martin v. Scott, 156 F.3d
578, 579-80 (5th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). Because he is
proceeding in forma pauperis, Barber'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 the 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
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).
Barber has not alleged a physical injury.
federal civil action may be brought by a prisoner confined in
jail, prison or other correctional facility for mental or
emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior
showing of physical injury.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e.
The physical injury required by § 1997e(e) must be more
than de minimis, but need not be significant. See Harper
v. Showers, 174 F.3d 716 (5th Cir. 1999) (citing
Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191 (5th Cir. 1997)
(bruising and soreness for ...