United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Monroe Division
VINCENT D. ROBERSON
OUACHITA CORRECTIONAL CENTER, ET AL.
A. DOUGHTY, JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
L. HAYES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
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 ...