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.

Roberson v. Ouachita Correctional Center

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

November 7, 2019

VINCENT D. ROBERSON
v.
OUACHITA CORRECTIONAL CENTER, ET AL.

         SECTION P

          TERRY A. DOUGHTY, JUDGE

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          KAREN L. HAYES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff Vincent D. Roberson, a prisoner at Ouachita Correctional Center proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed the instant proceeding on July 8, 201');">19, under 42 U.S.C. § 1');">1983. He names Ouachita Correctional Center (“OCC”) and Doctor Parker as defendants.[1');">1" name="FN1');">1" id= "FN1');">1">1');">1] For the following reasons, the Court should dismiss Plaintiff's claims.

         Background

         In his initial pleading, Plaintiff claims that Dr. Parker gave him too much medication, which caused him to suffer a stroke. [doc. # 1');">1, p. 4]. He adds, “they will not fix my meds at all.” Id. He seeks a transfer to a “DOC jail, ” $500, 000.00, and an injunction ordering the “jail to stop messing up on the offenders' meds.” Id.

         In his amended pleading, Plaintiff claims that there is mold in his sleeping area and in the showers. [doc. # 1');">11');">1, p. 3');">p. 3]. He also claims that “Nurse Parker” gave him too much insulin “for approximately 6 months in 201');">18[, ]” which caused him to pass out or faint 8-1');">10 times each week and which caused lapses of memory and diminished mental capacity. Id. at 4. He has not had any blood testing in over two years. Id.

         His hands stay swollen, and he has sores on his leg. Id. at 3. These injuries “could be from . . . too much insulin or from the unsanitary conditions . . . .” Id. He seeks $500, 000.00. Id. at 5.

         Law and Analysis

         1');">1. Preliminary Screening

         Plaintiff 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. § 1');">191');">15A.[2] See Martin v. Scott, 1');">156 F.3d 578, 579-80 (5th Cir. 1');">1998) (per curiam). Because he is proceeding in forma pauperis, his Complaint is also subject to screening under § 1');">191');">15(e)(2). Both § 1');">191');">15(e)(2)(B) and § 1');">191');">15A(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.

         A complaint is frivolous when it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 1');">19');">490 U.S. 31');">19, 325 (1');">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.

         A 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, 570 (2007); accord Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 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 simply calls for enough factual allegations to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence to support the elements of the claim. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556.

         Assessing whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief is a “context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Iqbal, supra. A well-pled complaint may proceed even if it strikes the court that actual proof ...


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.