United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Alexandria Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
H.L. PEREZ-MONTES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
the Court is a is a civil rights Complaint under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 filed by pro se Plaintiff Joshua Hippler
(“Hippler”). At the time of filing, Hippler was
incarcerated at the Fulton County Jail in Atlanta, Georgia.
Hippler alleges that he was denied adequate medical care
while incarcerated at the Natchitoches Parish Detention
Center (“NPDC”) in Natchitoches, Louisiana.
Hippler names as Defendants Sheriff Victor Jones and Nurse
Charlene Huftman. (Doc. 1, p. 3).
Hippler cannot meet the physical injury requirement of the
Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), his
Complaint and Amended Complaint (Docs. 1, 10) should be
DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
alleges that he is HIV positive and was denied “life
saving medications” by Nurse Charlene Huftman during
the 15 days he was incarcerated at the NPDC. (Doc. 1, p. 3).
Amended Complaint, Hippler claims that Defendant Huftman
dismissed Hippler by saying “toodles” the first
time he requested medical care, and told Hippler to write his
complaint on the wall the second time he requested treatment.
(Doc. 10, p. 1).
alleges that Victor Jones refused to take phone calls from
Hippler and his family members and failed to respond to
letters sent by Hippler. (Doc. 10, p. 2).
alleges that, without medication at NPDC, “the virus
was allowed to duplicate and build resistence [sic]
unchecked.” (Doc. 10, p. 3). Hippler also alleges that
the lack of treatment caused him to suffer “a
recurrence in depression and anxiety.” (Doc. 10, p. 3).
Law and Analysis
Hippler's Complaint is subject to screening under
§§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A.
time of filing, Hippler was a prisoner. Hippler has been
allowed to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 8). 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 Hippler 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.
Hippler alleges only a conclusory allegation of a
PLRA provides that “[n]o Federal civil action may be
brought by a prisoner confined in a jail, prison, or other
correctional facility, for mental or emotional injury
suffered while in custody without a ...