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.

Hippler v. Jones

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

September 27, 2019

JOSHUA HIPPLER, Plaintiff
v.
VICTOR JONES, ET AL., Defendants

          DRELL JUDGE

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

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

         Before 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).

         Because 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.

         I. Background

         Hippler 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).

         In his 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).

         Hippler 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).

         Hippler 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).

         II. Law and Analysis

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

         At the 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.

         B. Hippler alleges only a conclusory allegation of a physical injury.

         The 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 ...


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.