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.

Brown v. LeBlanc

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

September 26, 2019

JARVIS BROWN, Plaintiff
v.
JAMES LEBLANC, ET AL., Defendants

          DRELL JUDGE

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          JOSEPH H.L. PEREZ-MONTES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Before the Court is a civil rights Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 filed by pro se Plaintiff Jarvis Brown (“Brown”) (#710737). Brown is an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Corrections (“DOC”), incarcerated at the Louisiana State Penitentiary in Angola, Louisiana. Brown alleges that he was subjected to excessive force while incarcerated at the Raymond Laborde Correctional Center.

         Because Brown fails to state a claim against Defendants LeBlanc, McCain, and Duplechain, the claims against them should be be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

         I. Background

         Brown alleges that “an incident arose” between himself and another offender during which Brown threw feces on the offender. (Doc. 24-1, p. 12). Captain Easterling responded to the incident and ordered Brown to approach the tier bars to be restrained. (Doc. 24-1, p. 6). Brown did not comply because he was afraid that Captain Easterling would use unnecessary or excessive force. (Doc. 24-1, p. 6). Brown alleges that Captain Easterling sprayed Brown with Mace, and then Brown complied. (Doc. 24-1, p. 6). Brown alleges that, after he was restrained, Colonel Bonnette sprayed him with Mace over five times, and Captain Easterling watched. (Doc. 13, p. 3). Brown allegedly requested emergency medical treatment, but Lt. Duplechain only provided him with eye solution to rinse his eyes. (Doc. 1, p. 4).

         Brown received disciplinary reports for defiance, aggravated disobedience, aggravated fighting, and unsanitary practices. (Doc. 24-1, p. 16). Brown alleges that he lost good time as a result of a disciplinary conviction, but he does not know which of the disciplinary convictions resulted in the loss of good time. (Doc. 24-1, p. 15).

         II. Law and Analysis

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

         Brown is a prisoner who has been allowed to proceed in forma pauperis. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915A provides for the preliminary screening of lawsuits filed by prisoners seeking redress from an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 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). Because Brown 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 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 such relief.

         B. Brown fails to state a medical care claim against Lt. Duplechain.

         Prison officials violate the Eighth Amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual punishment when they act with “deliberate indifference” to the serious medical needs of prisoners. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, (1994); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105 (1976). Deliberate indifference “is an extremely high standard to meet.” Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 346 (5th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). An inmate must show that prison personnel “refused to treat him, ignored his complaints, intentionally treated him incorrectly, or engaged in any similar conduct that would clearly evidence a wanton disregard for any serious medical needs.” Domino v. Tex. Dep't Crim. J., 239 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir. 2001) (quoting Johnson v. Treen, 759 F.2d 1236, 1238 (5th Cir. 1985)).

         Brown claims that Defendant Duplechain denied Brown adequate medical care by only providing Brown with eye rinse solution to wash his eyes. Brown does not specify what additional medical care he believes he should have received. Brown clearly disagrees with the nature of treatment he received, but such a disagreement does not establish a constitutional violation. See Norton v. Dimanzana, 122 F.3d 286, 292 (5th Cir. 1997); Banuelos v. McFarland, 41 F.3d 232, 235 (5th Cir. 1995); Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991).

         C. Brown fails to state a claim against James LeBlanc ...


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.