United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Alexandria Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
H.L. Perez-Montes United States Magistrate Judge.
the Court is the civil rights Complaint under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 of pro se Plaintiff Larry Darnell
Wheeler (“Wheeler”) (#163673). Wheeler is an
inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of
Corrections, incarcerated at the Winn Correctional Center
(“WCC”) in Winnfield, Louisiana. Wheeler alleges
that he was bitten by a spider at WCC, resulting in a serious
Wheeler fails to state a claim for the deprivation of a
constitutional right, his Complaint (Doc. 1) should be DENIED
alleges that he was bitten by a poisonous spider at WCC.
(Doc. 1, p. 4). Wheeler claims that he now suffers from
nightmares and a fear of spiders. (Doc. 1, p. 4). Wheeler
names as Defendants WCC, Medical Director Randi Price, and
Law and Analysis
Wheeler's Complaint is subject to screening under
§§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A.
is a prisoner who has been granted leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. (Doc. 8). As a prisoner seeking redress from an
officer or employee of a governmental entity, Wheeler'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, Wheeler'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 a 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).
Wheeler has not alleged unconstitutional conditions of
confinement or deliberate indifference.
Constitution does not require that prisoners be provided
pleasant surroundings or a comfortable jail. See Harper
v. Showers, 174 F.3d 716, 719 (5th Cir. 1999). The
constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual
punishment requires simply that prisoners be afforded humane
conditions of confinement and receive adequate food, shelter,
clothing, and medical care. See Herman v. Holiday,
238 F.3d 660, 664 (5th Cir. 2001).
establish an Eighth Amendment violation based on conditions
of confinement, a prisoner must satisfy both an objective and
a subjective component. See Woods v. Edwards, 51
F.3d 577, 581 (5th Cir. 1995). “First, he must show
that his confinement resulted in a deprivation that was
‘objectively, sufficiently serious.'”
Hernandez v. Velasquez, 522 F.3d 556, 560 (5th Cir.
2008) (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834
(1994)). To make such a showing, the prisoner must
demonstrate that the deprivation violated contemporary
standards of decency and resulted in the denial of “the
minimal civilized measure of life's necessities.”
Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991) (internal
the prisoner must show that prison officials possessed a
sufficiently culpable state of mind in that they were
deliberately indifferent to the alleged conditions. See
Wilson, 501 U.S. at 297-303; Woods, 51 F.3d at
581. To establish deliberate indifference, the prisoner must
show that the official knew of and ...