United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Monroe Division
VINCENT D. ROBERSON
OUACHITA CORRECTIONAL CENTER
A. DOUGHTY, JUDGE.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
L. Hayes, United States Magistrate Judge.
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.
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 . . . .”
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
claims that “they” refuse to give him an
administrative remedy procedure form to “write them up
seeks $500, 000.00, and, without elaborating, asks the Court
to “help other offenders.” Id.
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
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.
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.
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 ...