James v. Louisiana State

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA JERROD PAUL JAMES CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 21-2128 LOUISIANA STATE, ET AL. SECTION: “I”(5) ORDER1 Before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss (Rec. doc. 11) filed by Defendant, Lafourche Parish Government (“Lafourche”). Plaintiff Jerrod Paul James has filed no opposition to the motion in accordance with the local rules of this Court. Having reviewed the motion, the CI.ourt dBeatecrkmgirnoeusn tdhat the motion should be granted. Pro se Plainintitfef rJ earlriaod Paul James (“James”) filed the Complaint in this matter in which he asserts claims, , against Lafourche under 42 U.S.CI.d §. 1983. (Rec. doc. 1). Plaintiff is an inmate at the Lafourche Parish Correctional Complex. ( at p. 2). Plaintiff alleges that his cause of action arises out of an incident that took place on January 1, 2020 during which LIide.utenant Neil Ledet restrained and “beat” him and subsequently placed him on lockdown. (Id. at p. 4). He believes that he suffered a blood clot in his legs as a result of this encounter. [2] ( ). [1] While this lawsuit is still technically referred to this Court, all parties have notified the Court that they consent to proceed before the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, in the interest of judicial efficiency, this Court will now issue orders in this lawsuit instead of reports and recommendations. [2] Plaintiff’s allegations related to any alleged indifference to his medical needs are the subject of another partial report and recommendation already issued by this Court (Rec. doc. 12) and need not be repeated here. Id. Plaintiff asks that Ledet be “fired.” ( at p. 6). He also seeks relief in the form of a new medical facility and compensation in the amount of $5,000,000 for pain and suffering, “police brutality,” “Itdr.auma,” “intentional emotional harm,” indifference to medical needs, Iadn.d discrimination. ( ). Finally, Plaintiff asks that Defendants pay his filing fees. ( ). Lafourche now seeks to dismiss any claims against it under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1II2. (b)(6S)t.a (nRdeacr. dd ofoc.r 1 a1 M). otion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) When considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court accIenp rtse aKlal wtreinllapCalenaadle Bdr efaaccthse as sL titriuge., viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. , 495 F.3d 191 , 205 (5th Cir. 2007). However, a pleading that offers mere “labels anAds hcocrnocfltu svi.o Inqsb”a olr “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” , 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009). The Court must thus identify pleadings that are conclusory and are not entitled to the assumption ofI dtr.uth and legal conclusions must be supported by the factual allegations that are pleaded. at 677-78. To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain suffIidc.ient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. While a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, it dIode.s Bdaemrthaonldo mmeowre v t.h Laand arney utnadorned, “thedefendant-unlawfully-harmed-me” accusation. ; , Civ. A. No. 141II4I.6 8, 2L0a1w5 WanLd 3 A6n5a5l2y5s,i sat *1 (E.D. La. Jan. 27, 2015). The Prison Litigation Reform Act provides that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Similarly, “the Louisiana PLRA provides that ‘[n]o prisoner suit shall assert a claim under state law until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.’” La. Rev. Stat. § 15:1184(A)(2). “Pre-filing exhaustion is mandatory, and [aG]o nczaaslee z mv. uSseta lbe dismissed if available administrative remedies were not exhausted.” , 702 F.3d 785, 788 (5th Cir. 2012). The exhaustion requirement applies to all inmate lawsuits regarding prison life, whether they involve general circumsSteaen cCelisf foorr ds pv.e Gciifbibc sepisodes, and whether they allege excessivPeo rfoterrc ev .o Nr usossmlee other wrong. , 298 F.3d 328 , 329 (5th Cir. 2002) (citing , 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002)). Exhaustion must be proper and in full compliance with applicable prison procedural rSuelee sS manitdh dve. Ladafloinuersc;h seu Pbasrta. ntial compliance with administrative procedures is insufficient. report and recommenda,t Nioon. aCdVo 2p1te-1d714, 2021 WL 4975698 , at *1 (E.D. La. Sept. 30, 2021), Guy v. LeBlanc , No. CV 21-1714, 2021 WL 4972374 (E.D. La. Oct. 26, 2021) (citing , No. 13-CV2792 c/w 13-CV-5033, 2015 WL 65303 , part o* 9s e(E.D. La. Jan. 5, 2015)). This Court recently dismissed a plaintiff’s complaint because the “[p]laintiff ma[de] clear on the face of his complaint that he has not exhausted the remedies that were aMvcaDilraibdlee v .t oW ehbimre through the LPCC prisoner grievance procedure prior to filing srueipt[o.r]”t and recommenda,t Cioinv . Aad. Nopot.e 2d1 -s5u2b, 2n0o2m1. WMLcB 3r2id7e2 2v2. 0W, aetb *r2e (E.D. La. May 20, 2021), , Civ. A. No. 21-52, 2021 WL 3268934 (E.D. La. July 30, 2021). In this case, Plaintiff admits in the complaint that he has not exhausted or completed any of the steps in the prison’s grievance procedure. (Rec. doc. 1 at pp. 2-3). Accordingly, this Court dismisses the Complaint without prejudMicceD rfoidre failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the PLRA and the Louisiana PLRA. , 2021 [3] W L 3272220, at *2. in forma pauperis Further, if an inmate files an complaint in federal court that contains claims that have not been exhausted throughw aivthai lparbeleju addimceinistrative remedies, those claimins sfohromuald p baeu dpiesrmisissed without prejudice, but See Underwo foodr vth. We pilusorpnose of proceeding opvuerrsruualendt oton 2ot8h Uer.S g.Cro. u§n 1d9s 1a5s .e xplained in Gonzalez v. Sea,l 151 F.3d 292, 296 (5th Cir. 19W98a)lc,ott v. Crabtree , 702 F.3d 785 (5th Cir.2012); Fitch v. La. Dep’t ,o Cf iPvu. Ab.. NSaof. e1t3y -&71 C, 2or0r1. 3 WL 5236643 , at *4 n.17 (E.D. La. Sept. 13, 2013); , Civ. Action No. 08-cinv -1fo1r2m6a, 2p0a0u9p eWrisL 1076749, at *3 (W.D. La. Apr. 20, 2009). Plaiinnt iffofr mfilae dp atuhpise rliaswsuit . AIVc.c ordiCnognlyc,l uPlsaiionnti ff may not refile these claims . FITo rI Sth OeR foDrEeRgoEiDng reasons, GRANTED that the Motion to Dismiss (Rec. doc.11) is DISMISSE, Dan dW PIlTaHinOtiUff’Ts cPlRaiEmJUs DaIgCaEi nst DDeIfSeMndISaSnEt DL aWfoIuTrHch PeR EPJaUriDshIC EG overnment are in forma pauperis but for the purpose of proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 . [3] Because this Court finds that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant should be dismissed for this reason, the Court need not consider Defendant’s other arguments. 2nd New Orleans, Louisiana, this ________ day of March, 2022. __________________________________________ MICHAEL B. NORTH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE