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.

Alfred v. Scott

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

September 25, 2019

CURSTONE ALFRED #354224
v.
PAUL SCOTT, ET AL

          JUNEAU JUDGE

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          Patrick J. Hanna United States Magistrate Judge

         Pro se complainant Curstone Alfred (“Alfred”), an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Corrections, filed the instant civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 on July 8, 2019. [Rec. Doc. 1] He names as defendants Paul Scott, Dr. Dustin, Franklin Foundation Hospital and the St. Mary Parish Law Enforcement Center. While plaintiff is no longer incarcerated, the allegations in his complaint relate to events that occurred while he was incarcerated at the St. Mary Parish Law Enforcement Center.

         This matter has been referred to the undersigned for review, report, and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §636 and the standing orders of the Court. For the following reasons, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the matter be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous and for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii).

         Statement of the Case

         On June 9, 2019, Plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell in water from a leaking sink and shower in the restroom area of Wolf D Dorm at the St. Mary Parish Law Enforcement Center. [Rec. Doc. 1, p. 3] He was later told that he was knocked unconscious. Id. He was transferred by Acadian Ambulance to the Franklin Foundation Hospital, at which time he told the paramedics that his head, shoulder and back were hurting. Id. His chief complaint is that no cat scan was performed and that headaches still occur. Id.

         Law and Analysis

         1. Frivolity Review

         Alfred has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this matter. Accordingly, his complaint is subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which provides for sua sponte dismissal of the complaint or any portion thereof if the court determines that it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii).

         A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Gonzalez v. Wyatt, 157 F.3d 1016');">157 F.3d 1016, 1019 (5th Cir. 1998). A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it is clear the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief. Doe v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 153 F.3d 211');">153 F.3d 211, 215 (5th Cir. 1998). When determining whether a complaint is frivolous or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the court must accept the plaintiff's allegations as true. Horton v. Cockrell, 70 F.3d 397, 400 (5th Cir. 1995) (frivolity); Bradley v. Puckett, 157 F.3d at 1025 (failure to state a claim).

         2. Supervisory Official

         Plaintiff has sued Paul Scott in his supervisory capacities as Warden of SMPJ. Plaintiff is hereby advised: “Supervisory officials may be held liable only if: (i) they affirmatively participate in acts that cause constitutional deprivations; and (ii) implement unconstitutional policies that causally result in plaintiff's injuries.” Mouille v. City of Live Oak, Tex., 977 F.2d 924, 929 (5th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 1');">508 U.S. 951 (1993). “Vicarious liability does not apply to § 1983 claims.” Pierce v. Texas Dept. of Crim. Justice, Inst. Div., 1146');">37 F.3d 1146, 1150 (5th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 14 U.S. 1107');">514 U.S. 1107 (1995). “Personal involvement is an essential element of a civil rights cause of action.” Thompson v. Steele, 1');">709 F.2d 381, 382 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 897 (1983). Plaintiff has not alleged facts sufficient to demonstrate either personal involvement or the implementation of unconstitutional policies by the Warden and, therefore, claims against him should be dismissed.

         3. State Actor

         Plaintiff has named as defendants the physicians at Franklin Foundation Hospital but has failed to allege facts to establish ...


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.