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.

Roberson v. Ouachita Correctional Center

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

September 12, 2019

VINCENT D. ROBERSON
v.
OUACHITA CORRECTIONAL CENTER

         SECTION P

          TERRY A. DOUGHTY, JUDGE.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          Karen L. Hayes, United States Magistrate Judge.

         Plaintiff Vincent D. Roberson, a prisoner at Ouachita Correctional Center (“OCC”) proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed the instant proceeding on June 3, 2019, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He names Ouachita Correctional Center (“OCC”) as Defendant.[1" name="FN1" id="FN1">1] For reasons that follow, the Court should dismiss Plaintiff's claims.

         Background

         Plaintiff alleges that he is confined in unsanitary conditions: gnats fly over his food when he eats, and mold is present in the shower and in the cell where he eats and sleeps. [doc. # 1, p. 3]. Plaintiff also alleges that he is diabetic and that doctors do not give him enough insulin. Id. He suggests that, due to the lack of insulin, he had a stroke and has “been going in and out . . . .” Id.

         In his amended pleading, Plaintiff writes that “Ms. Parker who passes out meds” sometimes “purposely messes up” his insulin. [doc. # 6]. When he objects to Parker's actions, “they” try to place him in lockdown. Id.

         Plaintiff claims that “they” refuse to give him an administrative remedy procedure form to “write them up on.” Id.

         Plaintiff seeks $500, 000.00, and, without elaborating, asks the Court to “help other offenders.” Id.

         Law and Analysis

         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. § 1915A.[2] See Martin v. Scott, 156 F.3d 578, 579-80 (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.

         A 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. 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,550 U.S. 544');">550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); accord Ashcroft v. Iqbal,556 U.S. 662');">556 U.S. 662, 678 (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 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). Plausibility does not equate to possibility or probability; it lies somewhere in between. Id. Plausibility ...


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.