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.

Morris v. Concordia Parish Correctional Facility

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

June 5, 2019

REGINALD T. MORRIS, Plaintiff
v.
CONCORDIA PARISH CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, ET AL., Defendants

          DEE D. DRELL JUDGE.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          Joseph H.L. Perez-Montes United States Magistrate Judge.

         Before the Court is a civil rights Complaint and Amended Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Docs. 1, 12) filed by pro se Plaintiff Reginald T. Morris (“Morris”). Morris is a pretrial detainee incarcerated at the Lafayette Parish Correctional Center (“LPCC”). Morris complains that he was injured while exiting a jail transport van at the Concordia Parish Correctional Facility (“CPCF”). Morris also claims he was denied adequate medical care at CPCF and LPCC, and that he was subjected to unconstitutional conditions of confinement at CPCF.

         Because Morris cannot establish that he suffered a constitutional violation, his Complaints (Docs. 1, 12) should be DENIED and DISMISSED.

         I. Background

         Morris alleges that he was a passenger in a CPCF van when it was involved in an accident in the sally port. (Doc. 1, p. 3). As Morris was attempting to exit the van unassisted, his leg shackles got caught on a step, and he fell on his head and face, rendering him unconscious. (Doc. 1, p. 3). Morris was transported by ambulance to the Riverland Medical Center. (Doc. 1, p. 3). Morris was treated at the hospital and returned to CPCF. Morris alleges he was “put on the floor” despite having a bottom bunk pass. (Doc. 1-2, p. 1). Morris alleges he slept on the floor until he was transferred to Lafayette. (Doc. 1-2, p. 1).

         Morris alleges he “repeatedly contacted CPCF medical staff via sick call request” but received no response. However, Morris states that he was provided a steroid shot and ibuprofen. (Doc. 1-2, pp. 2-3). Morris also complains about the medical care he received at LPCC.

         Morris was ordered to amend his Complaint to state whether he was provided a mattress when he was required to sleep on the floor, and to state the number of nights he slept on the floor. (Doc. 11). Additionally, Morris was ordered to state what injuries, if any, he suffered as a result of sleeping on the floor and as a result of allegedly being denied medical care. (Doc. 11). Finally, Morris was ordered to provide the dates on which he requested medical care and the reasons for his requests, and to state the date on which he was transferred to LPCC from CPCF. (Doc. 11). Morris's Amended Complaint is completely unresponsive to the Order and devoid of any allegation regarding sleeping on the floor. (Doc. 12).

         Morris has filed six civil rights suits in this Court since October 2018. So far, two have been dismissed with prejudice as frivolous or failing to state a claim for which relief can be granted. (1:18-cv-1322; 6:19-cv-546).

         II. Law and Analysis

         A. Morris's Complaint is subject to screening under §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A.

         Morris is a prisoner 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, Morris'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); Rosborough v. Mgmt. and Training Corp., 350 F.3d 459, 461 (5th Cir. 2003) (holding that prison management corporations and their employees are state actors under § 1983). Because he is proceeding in forma pauperis, Morris'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 such relief.

         A 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).

         B. Morris fails to state a claim regarding ...


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.