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.

Perkins v. Ouachita Correctional Center

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

December 2, 2019

JONATHAN DOMTAE PERKINS
v.
OUACHITA CORRECTIONAL CENTER, ET AL.

         SECTION P

          TERRY A. DOUGHTY, JUDGE

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          Karen L. Hayes, United States Magistrate Judge

         Plaintiff Jonathan Domtae Perkins, a former prisoner at Ouachita Correctional Center (“OCC”) proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed the instant proceeding on August 1');">1');">1');">14, 201');">1');">1');">19, under 42 U.S.C. § 1');">1');">1');">1983. He names the following defendants: OCC, Sheriff Jay Russul, Mrs. Brordway, Captain Cambell, Warden Pat Johnson, Ms. Parker, and Corporal Yardba.[1');">1');">1');">1" name="FN1');">1');">1');">1" id= "FN1');">1');">1');">1">1');">1');">1');">1] For reasons that follow, the Court should dismiss Plaintiff's claims.

         Background

         Plaintiff filed his initial pleading before the United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, claiming that, at OCC, “they” refused to give him “proper nutrients and meds . . . .” [doc. # 1');">1');">1');">1, p. 5]. When he said “something about it, ” they accused him of attempting to start a riot and then retaliated by placing him in “the hold” or in lockdown. Id.

         On September 20, 201');">1');">1');">19, the Eastern District transferred the proceeding to this Court. [doc. # 6]. Plaintiff filed another pleading here, alleging that Warden Pat Johnson, Captain Cambell, and Nurse Parker refused to provide the correct medication for his mental health. [doc. # 1');">1');">1');">10, p. 3]. These defendants told him that he did not need medication, and then they placed him in the “hot box.” Id.

         Plaintiff filed a third amended pleading on November 1');">1');">1');">12, 201');">1');">1');">19. [doc. # 1');">1');">1');">15]. He suggests that, when he sought care for his mental health, Nurse Parker told him to stop coming to jail. Id. Plaintiff relayed Parker's response to Warden Johnson and Captain Cambell, and he requested a grievance form; instead of providing a grievance form, they placed him in “lockdown with a man” who had H.I.V. Id.

         In his first pleadings, Plaintiff seeks $250, 000.00, expungement of his record, better food, “a new store, ” and “a new warden.” In his latter pleading, he seeks $250, 000.00 and a transfer out of Louisiana. [doc. # 1');">1');">1');">10, p. 4].

         Law and Analysis

         1');">1');">1');">1. Preliminary Screening

         Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, his Complaint is subject to screening under § 1');">1');">1');">191');">1');">1');">15(e)(2). Section 1');">1');">1');">191');">1');">1');">15(e)(2)(B) provides 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');">1');">1');">19');">490 U.S. 31');">1');">1');">19, 325 (1');">1');">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 ...


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.