Case 1:04-cv-00759-DDD-JDK Document 1 Filed 03/29/2004 Page 1 of 22

.f0/A ROO61\6liio.sed by a prisoner filing a elvll rights complaint UO!l!lliSTRICT COURT

DISTF~LCfTD •

THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 WESTERN

Of LOUISIAU

"

MAR 2 9 2004

~ P013~PT H.. ~~~.I~~ll. r.!Jr.K UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MAR 2~ 2004

WfSftf{H DIS(f{I(f Of LOUISIANA
.;,,;-;~·.~;vnl. i.vl.H~IAItA WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

ROBERT H • .tJ4J~I1, CLERK
_ _ 3Y ---.lJ.:...L..-I4~

') '~jI.-:2
IAT1l1CA-- P I&WN)

e I

.A L

Full Name of Plaintiff, Prisoner Number

OtlO4 - Oi15~:' A

7~M ~idfel sse) v J-d..e UNS; otiS;
(!/}{J'5+IN<5 /)1'11.115.; j-ie-tcl iJ,.a:c.td1.! - /Vt:;;7A.) .

SEC P

1

VS.o,uCltfJl/S; IVI'fN!.y "(t)~5/ 1(E-orllatll. 1,0' Judge
Ci11'ttZ.qE - OAKbA/e; tJiJl\.JX)idt11 1ltf7(..6/1 sht'lU .n

JUDGE DRELL

i)~tneUT.

FUJName<;f Defendant

Magiwr~t3l~RATE JUDGE KIRK

I. Previous Lawsuits

COMPLAINT

A. Have you begun any other lawsuit while incarcerated or detained in any facility?

Yes

No

)l •

B. If your answer to the preceding question is yes, provide the following infonnation.

1. State the court(s) where each lawsuit was filed (iffederal, identify the District; ifstate

court, identify the county or parish):

____________________ ~ t

~~~~J~--- .\ -----------------

< )

,-

2. Name the parties to the previous lawsuit(s): Plaintiffs: Defundan~: _________________________________________
3. Docket number(s): _____ 4. Date(s) on which each lawsuit was filed: _____________________
5. Disposition and date thereof [For example, was the case dismissed and when? Was it appealed and by whom (plaintiffor defendant)? Is the case still pending?]:

2

\
Case 1:04-cv-00759-DDD-JDK Document 1 Filed 03/29/2004 Page 2 of 22

C. Have you filed any lawsuit or appeal in any federal district court or appeals court which has

been dismissed?

Yes

No X

Ifyour answer to the preceding question is yes, state the court(s) which dismissed the case, the civil action number(s), and the reason for dismissal (e.g., frivolity, malice, failure to state a claim, defendants immune from relief sought, etc.).

'?A II. A. Name of iDstitutioD aDd address of current place of conf"mement: CDN&!JIJdIH "iJ/t/Lish (Jor../lt3cr/OA/-'1t (!/h'fyJL 84-?fei? I1wy"-lq: :}r-7: ltVd4(' IA. y..I"B~

B. Is there a prison grievance procedure in this institution?

Yes X

No __

1. Did you file an administrative grievance based upon the same facts which form the

basis of this lawsuit?

Yes)(

No __

IfYes, what is the Administrative Remedy Procedure number? A./OA./e jJ4VJ'WecI

2. If you did not file an administrative grievance, explain why you have not done so.

3. If you filed an administrative grievance, answer the following question. What specific steps ofthe prison procedure did you take and what was the result? (For example, for state prisoners in the custody of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections: did you appeal any adverse decision through to Step 3 of the administrative grievance procedure by appealing to the Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections? For federal prisoners: did you appeal any adverse decision from the warden to the Regional Director for the Federal Bureau ofPrisons, or did you make a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act?)
~I1.d/l4s htkl2 9-~i lee! Y'--<' ,e 5~Nct'

Attach a copy of each prison response and/or decision rendered in the administrative proceeding.
III. Parties to Current Lawsuit:

X:\proseforms\1983.wpd

3

Case 1:04-cv-00759-DDAD-/JdD/K1«1,.D,.;ocufJmbein/Yt 1lW,F,;il;edIJ0e3i/2M9X/~20~0"4,A.P;a;ge?3l1o-fi02c2t::. ~., . A. NameofPlaintifI B /J9a.ewac..l; M(}~evo; A)/JSLJ?/I~)r M:!1U?ei£JIt1j (J,usf~C=~ ~l
AiT/lcll/R:!
Address ~~-%?PC Hr."Il/*"'/S ! t! P".1/1,.11= ,.. '9¢Y?GI.-'f.J<I L,/1. y(3:Jr

B. Defendant, Ilkisjt',uc; dt. !urJi:;

, is employed as

nrtd iJ;iUelatt -t{rg.IeG at ilJ&W OLI~')tIA/S r(!c" /)I~

Il.u.y Defendant, Jj

L. !I~olr:.S

::tee 0iyl::e-x 1/1/ C/vMf¢·

, is employed as
U.s.. iet:.J J0 lOG. I,{.,)' Ii +Ie y k!d"
at OttKDtUf.--, L!t· ·t-I<,{(,~

Defendant~ sh~ft ~p)r - CwuoofLIie ,oM/sA, is employed as
Cowf~e!oR 'to tb.J.$
iMAA ifLetiON bh14iiJ6"'ES at W·9-·Jb.; c2t.,%~ Hw¥1~ ~'fIJf.£dAYJ Gq •

5 AdditionaldefendantsC-~$ ,wARbeJV oW-icc: (,&JA,O;' lfAoo/)£ -

eh 1'9 <1>* .SECt.J(iiy'

IV. Statement of Claim

State the FACTS ofyour case. Specificallydescribe the involvement and actions ofeachnamed defendant. Include the names of all persons involved in the incident(s) or condition(s) giving rise to this lawsuit, and the dates upon which and the places where the incident(s) and/or condition(s) occurred. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SET FORTH ONLY FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS. YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO SET FORTH LEGAL THEORIES OR ARGUMENTS.

X:\prosefonns\\983. wpd

4

(b!C.el"aS·stIOenAE1J:4.04·"t-'1crlviel-a0~07f~5(L9?i-JDylDiDh+-y'"JDSc;K;l(HN::O-SD; boNhctu:o:Pm+-reenr-tnt

"1t:i:1J£V.CF+.iIAl\eAidrlvVc0,b30/2/p9.O//260l0iB4~I)PotP.fa:p ;g-e't~ -4A-oi" Nfc2::2t e~ \

d€-
APON

T~

'to C~l' W~ lV~ t:?'1C-A ~ PAill.. '(dilLf 5~tMiCR -Us.ect i-o hs

tull; she b ANd pt.rJIVIi5et::1 Vez,v €Bfs; fl pruJn'I,s..e ~A-

=r ~iAliW I e:pNtd ON ttff-rf!/vned

-l;

,<t,S VeT 'fo /n;'ff·

V. Relief

State exactly what you want the court to provide to you or do for you. Make no legal
ar~ents. Cite no cases or statutes. 'D~"Wts shC4ld be ~ntp ISI/eet ~ m~~-t­
D€-k-,vl-iolv sflt-,.,q'rl1C.Cts /l'lVd I/.-d ;CJ/tpvd<$' ;If-// hrule iV(:cc/S j 0< hDuse

de flt/tVf:;CS A·r /) u,;diJrd qc:fevl/o#V CS7f.,'h=~. 't-hF &1..//tT shaulcl

k!..e <!.1:>y/lli z.e "" P!- t 7' h (}:!JA..d,' (0 A/ S 0 ~l~C::/J.7C:7'XT ~S' I9-L R-1fZ/tX/ S

-IE. ~t.

'IIV~ ),U,y}..,NS h6"-n/{--A "..,."J;) OIld~""T'e. de~~h4s JLc,<.c-~-

~/G 1/ IN //1 u,q S 'f-O !u~/;J-£(:() 6--t(:-?Vf,~

n:x-s <f<J1e e)f/rl-h IN·

T N't== rz::-x, I

/t7VcI 0 'H1<7"Yl. 'Sq

~ s 5 ~~/<::. IIV cI~n? ;<tIle;S'

VI. Plaintiffs Declaration
A. I understand that if! am transferred or released, I must apprise the Court ofmy address, and my failure to do so may result in this complaint being dismissed.
B. I understand that I may not proceed without prepayment of costs if I have filed three lawsuits and/or appeals that were dismissed on grounds that the action and/or appeal was frivolous or malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which reliefmay be granted, unless I am in imminent danger of serious physical injury.
Signed tbis

Prisoner no. (Louisiana Department of C~Bureau of Prisons)
'<fb?bO <3z usrlW<:
·4/03i~ !~~~
l&nheI ICI'ft!. /JCA
cgueg~.
t;:,l.Jc.. B~-t I
'ifim;j ~

[3:f:4 ~\M~~ ___
~"}i lA AE:>lM 1301",
~~~~'rr1
-p IIIf\,K!€ C • is i2aw x)
.~--
?~Tt..tcl< L ~12.c;.v1V
CJ.l4 ,{lJk.{~~.~
~c:;,t.!VJtse pl"c.KtNQ..)u
~-:~!!i_~@/l ('

5

Case 1:04-cv-00759-DDD-JDK Document 1 Filed 03/29/2004 Page 5 of 22

(K) llet!.BSS Y-d 9nG &u,q-s IL.'/ftU /..1 /;M~I/

7

f

'P/!9IN/'11 s ;C)/kfe {jI;cy IUe .6e1ftJt devied (j.JlC::- {}:JlU5ft'fr:d

IOJ.hq/ ;('rhf <i-d /YJt:>9N,Nf9v! At!.Ce;S ,Yo f/hci t1x.t/lrs J4s'
1/ duet ££Sud J#'1iA 19..u /IJ--adjl"A/6 /"lW ///;/l~ o.e '/0
fJdezuMe, /-/SS/SfAJUt!S ~M jJCDjJI6 ~Alvcd flU CLAE ("1-~
pII'IJJ:·,f;ll~ I1ti3 hoLtstt:i w C/cB?d cuslcdy ;tl?u);, &!/w.jQT r;
It; VAl: /J!Itu /t:but£r. 1 fJeen-ts,e:? 0 VA~ (ftJ/J?pleA /UA !w/lt;:; 0,
/MM'7/l~ hiYv J/lU/ J9tvC/ V-Ae cl/c-7-f! {!o.u//PUIN[ ~'j,fA htJlV C7CouM/eke! 1;tJ (1;i/; ( /MNl /fLA -h"vw tlJISCSj r!/Ac- /A/m~ sub
.sklr.k 0uM:£/ p;edy'('AM jJV1VIC/C-c/ by oIe-ft:;;~ is I/c,
ttdefuAf8) ~sfBeiA/y /IJ /t'fAi ~9 '!At: /Uumb&7f!. oJ dd/l-'-~ W ~ //lii 4 /-, fUr PLtJ<5c . 9/./,£'/?Jex./Ud/lt:!} {Mt;- dC:YCN:f~1s hlft/e 'f",lecl Yo p=-d 1ft.; pI/lt!t;, f} !1ysf6M 1/IJ",.i Qp//-k5 -

V;f4/ /6[141 /e5alReh Mek,e14!s, SjB!J.j;"r!.IIlty, 11-1- f./Jc?(!,

/ p,(!, f·· hold,''''';? p/l'1ec Y-k-u J<k2 IV/) .,&/1 ptj::~&-nt /xJc;/S..)
f1ie if[ rc-~11 fEru 1,K/!/oN'S, j#viJ (/he l.41d JedSZA/ Slf

'7 prl@VICllff tt:jJ{)"tY&7< IV! It/ ;vf/ll,.ut::cfl'7}eJE IItAM M f/tJ;I() (JASC'

IS CfAe j/t.JS t) 51. eylZ. )- US - 0. Ot) t) e~f£,

{iAJAirtfS 7'-'IlCMe-/2. /1J/cfc" ru.+f Me de;cu:/~ 'MB!UfA ..

fj-k;'f(

Afev/s; J

<Jk

!JJ.u!t;dt'",! f/l;l,s),

<Shc-lllll

~p~~ f J

/,

J/Zlj,;re Olv /A.c//f~t p//I/dlJ.k )1 e{!6S5 10 t3xtLTS b'l1h//

J;VCj fo jJLtJl//d<5 l~dl'&j<::7t-t d e:fA/~ I(W,'I/.-Iz !?¥Je /1Jv/J fJt77V

</cJ dt'l/Cff / tZf,4/ doc!U;nEJd~ I r:JvJj ;;()'/~ M.sfcruA I Se£I/I'e.£~

-/-

Case 1:04-cv-00759-DDD-JDK Document 1 Filed 03/29/2004 Page 6 of 22

'/-CJ JClIl.J<McJ.JIi'vtfe Y-lu~nA .) 1~1/6€d (9')J 19-1/ CME 11--6tJt/c, C/Ac--dcEJt::'7udlflUfs hAVt;- v/(J/Flr£d p/I9-/~~}l~ elfA-A </<J ~j(1 -
,IIet!es.s ItS !'li£Jv,dr=d <f1;( /)() YAc J/'(sT lbJ"j ~lILft;-t:~ ItMeAJC/Int;~f ~ r;J Y-/Jt5 U. 3. &,<.J6i Yu It'd A.I .

@ -/)~!>~ 1_-Q7 £;¢i~__lQJc:_~f-~"'vus ,#f:/5!Jt!/U

~//1i 1111.T15 hil7"c- 1'1 S /9 cl"w 58!O.vel «/VelJ VA", f ~ /Uo,u-
{!/,/I./-:sf,AN /~rYJAf~ 'MG (j,l1J(!J),tcI/A S);/:/(fit- /)t:/,;If£fmevf- -

t()fJE/Ates 19 l(d6!tl,)!;')V1l~" /~d67-~XC:;~CCc/ !?o/Iey ) luh,e-I. !-/);

Yo 6ee..Llte.6 ({)CMc-x /L&/'f'OU5 ~/tfA S t!~IUSI-/'ftt!tb/V191 tj]lA;IIeA"vt

0t a--s lI/Ude-1<. fMc? Y/,lsi /Jmc-x4Ih~~f '!A6" U!].6;lusl-/'iu~ON

Y-A8 SI1t'c/ (J!/I/,v!/tl S /A-,i~sf ilJ ? E b'-)(c,a!.isc- tJ1- ;(C /1'

1i 0 IV / s j,u JIU~t3c/ {)IU s C:l.k:::-~/y} hy Y./c-'" Olt5tt::=,.c£/~<.-rS ~ /l(5-

eu t f.LU'tl/:A4C:'r-f) fo

V/J&!/( ;',4//2. /Jft/d ';'0 sA/}vc7 1- ,41/ '1<!,J/t; / 17-1-1

fl3eyof't£ /LJ)'YIA/E$ (t/hv he C!/JS5I T,"c....;d 'fe> fEA.leYlA/ /&j>u/~fi()_
hOilS /"-17 - O?t?rl'lICAlly. deflfill/c?::'"5 t;-/l)'c &11 /f,v~ jJlI-fr./e£.
~wIV AIWt5 be-e:/U jJ /tIeq;f I/J @m//vIS ok", ltd &7/2(:y-t1!~A./ .

UIJIt'/ yJ;eyJ sqlJlU,f </tJ r;hb {( IJIJ A,,<f//l).J //u.Jh'tu//o,u/ft/ jJo//(!.f/'
It!i.. z ~bJwtU I41uJ Mr. /361/ bs-lolU V-a ViJt3 1z'/1S!7Yf'1£J~S 4biA
Yo I'J {(NO - /w1/2 t!.tI f 1) jJ011(;£;). /11.1 /#UtJY/;ex. s/rn/I~ 1/vsIxI..uec; de!l9/~cc j1J/eo SC)u)V h.l'fs bec-IL< ):.c--pf iIV I1cim//V,s/-I'ZII'I-/Tuc--

S~7Il1=JI't~'OA/ ~)( 0, MOJVY-AS ~ ~K JrJ?/?/A;II'9-/~/Mf h/s bJJU1 -
bc~. (IIA/.. 13&)v/V is It SUA./A.// MUS/tM) I O~ie-~) cMedc?

1-&1<Jd1411..1/s <f9/1 ~ {J&'){hJ;' f MU!$)'M );Un7A!C:S ~ &;lI./f"e.c--tA-~6-'" ~
# 112JdAys fA/! i( 9urYWIh {).R-Afc->e II :::5S)(u/ec-· /A-J t!Ad.Ll'lsf M.L.tS7-

j)q,U /AJrn/ltc?5 who t1-£t2 ;/t.Hx/Led 41td/O.R fe~cd Ii~ 4

/11 JIlr:c? 6:jL-c')ee;'s(:? ~d c-~.JoYMe;vl 7(J ~ If' aus he-//c-T S J

~

• c2_

Case 1:04-cv-00759-DDD-JDK Document 1 Filed 03/29/2004 Page 7 of 22

VIti!.-IOu~ (.../Mf2S dllLt'N{ CMt::- Wccl<t ) ItA l/S//M IftI/Y)AIES ~d
oM~")(! ttn/1/J5 Ira AJof !99'1ottdcd 3.L~ <ht&:4fm6/t!-, / IU' JIlt. % odt' Ywu /111 uskl'TA :56S5io,us (1-IJt76,e ed/ M Ily /le/mIN/S Ie
Ed N.E ve~y 0J'fe;v e/l~!t:~ il /II ,;q// 07T6~' 110'
f Ils /VIUM) jJ/~u/uI-; 9"7s eJI}//U fJht::1 ~ ;(t? It I LJV $ ~--cIo/1/l
h19-5 bc"-Elll ht//lClc-v flU v/tJiIlhiJA/ tJJ fLhc ~&lifICJUS ~C­
7' oJ dfJl1A ;(.i::~ fO/l/l h:aXl AM t4:1Vd ~6- '.LsI- 4nt:-?c.O'Jn67Vf fA
U,g, ~fo0lluho;u.

(f) De7U'~/_ D1= /~ ~-x.c(j/A&JL~jld~~' fJ,ccss.

?JrriJTn s /1-//6fc w,e:y /i.qv6 /;c~7V' dC7Li''d V-hc- 'frzsT -
!l:medM~f £t'rAr jJ,!h/!J/ftAJ1 ,lQb~/df;/V1 </Ae JLEECldM L-
ethe Pless. I/() lMnl CMe oI~~I~ ~e~ (J/lssecl,~
~e/U6J ~ltl LulJuld hAw frJ/ (Jl./blt'cAliOA.JS ~~ l/hc- -
hole/tAl,! e-wc-;<, /Is /} //c~S ~ :5CJllAfE oJ Y-IJ e jJMllUf/;jJ ~c""

Jtpp/I(vwfs ~/? /Jsy/vl4A,. /hvl) 0 >Lht:'J( 'f}LJffi1S 0} jJ~tJfet:-f
I lex }tJN UlJdex IV J IJAf/o N A- / 19tv,; yju~-7tt::jdKE e/l£Jq -hit, f /I- N c-Z

/-0 J!J::(!E,IJe (.,fp- t{) 'o/'9fe~ ;Uc--ws /YIhlbJtIA/S ~jJu/;/;e, /l/6U/~

or or II 3)uRee.;. </tJ~1 b.wu OIU /J-II ouIs~/ jJubh'eAI/IJ~ ~ORldr
fl)/V <.Me 9ftt:doM jJL£-SS rM~ P//;/WtlS ~/flit '/eJ /c
(l67U($ A?vd ;JtJSS'es5 /x:or~1 /J1J79/!z/lI./eiS I 1'Wd.dfA&~ /lc-/1d~
'! P teA Iff~>rt$" sud. liS l( r<. Js-tJIUl::X S Lc-r;p/ VeldS ~ ,If jJab ~~~

(t4nl f!I11u be v~ /!eSCJaas ~I -y-IJK jJ.LLJ-:SC /tlif~fs ~ Yhc- -
bAV hy Yhe d~/lds ;/t/f,ei/Vfc·s' ON /Vor oJy $lAt;-- /OfA* Ct,
C)J,e deffliNC7::-S /i/umAfes) iul,l1iS() ONrJAG IlIjILIs oJ, 9-/uJs&-

Ott/Side CMe jJ/t/SCJIU ~ Iti£ CjlJe/J( jJtJj,'/-'en I 1/;0-7-</5 I!U £t:7f~

<tk iy i/Uf 1/5 oIe<!-Is/tJAJ ttJ/'v CfA/s /S.5uG.

)::;~ o} cliS,(!Ju=f,oJV

-3-

Case 1:04-cv-00759-DDD-JDK Document 1 Filed 03/29/2004 Page 8 of 22

Au:;:/ l/Ac;!lt . t/J£: (J£./sON Ails J.)() sA~cf t5~I4~tT //ldf;tA/;/(

J/J <pte!, //UMllk l/Ju;..e(LY /:5 /UC) f c-vc/tJ W/ls/Je---d UJd41
fMAy 3:>d 0'7 ole 'kxf~,,1s O£ hlc-J1eh. Me sAc~ jld'd-

IIJc/ed CJ.J,. "tJr~1 t f ; t J lei< CfAey u::ed 1-0 b6 )LAE (!elIdA:.

,V-Aey (wAile)
lMex jUtJ!C£

NOW ItCse-/lAIJ/e /f {dllt-f - j)£dWI.../ .. &-Vc-"
t9-// .smell /i/It: AU/VJ~IIJ SWt31t; /J-f 1411-

'-htues. C;-/Je SI47Y16 qdes p'€ *,aA=/~ ~d o)lAt;X I/?~

dRy, 9k filli"';f flh'1/t/~x.s (j../,'1 f /Jt)uSE jJ!/I-/4!JlS /UE

/JtuS';t1/t/,ftlIlY ~I- nil, Y-1/YJ&0J <Me d-1-y /ztJtJlY16 ~l:Ies

fh'lG L ,eusr - )-///~cI: CJ-/J~ SMw<:J{.. 5 /J7Vd Y-o I '/L..:f ~(51t;--;,

s /!J:;7YJA/AJ d, /(j ~ Til/tid /lNcI S ljJ;J6-x.y J C;Ac' Ie£ &kJ/cx-s -
h/t1l5 did tLtJcI LfjJ J ~~ IAhY,ffIc.s /TLt:- {}U../,A..,Ous ''/ Jt1,f

(]e::;:/ ~ us8 Cj-IJt;741, <Me C/ovns hold 19 &jJ/le/1y o?- 6'(.

1)Jlhl'lf~s tu/~ /lJ8 6~)!/!./'.st:;·jJ/l(Jl/lcieci /9-A/d /A/j~1-J/v~'

~ee,~-;q h'ON) (jAt:;;~ 115 N0 oIGS I~A/ /'I-f~cf 6Jl4()i::./~(- /fO=/'l

YJus Jl!lb.""7 f~- ~ ~ f.o I I N hI,q f-c:!S

1 - (j M

e It IV! 1'-.jJ O$U

e AJ ,,,,ell.-

MGufA-1 ~bltt!~O.
II I~ S~;Etvf"t/~Alr J ,rlldW~ CMAf s£&JNc1- hl7/Vd s;nDk<-:" c;}L potie'S ;:X:t:JjJlc:? c/o (l Jt1tUt!.e72. /ttLJI€CCI) SOt!./Ei/~ hA~ m-1~ ./2u/~-s
C/Attrf !ZejU/£6 :5t!.kofs ;CM/d ~?e jJlIb//e /:u/b'/~fs l/-d ;J~t1-
hib/I /v- hablSt: :5IUobilf. W7~ CMd=6o.vs ~c//1ItE' Vet S/9~
k'iA i hI1IlPlilZd'S) h6:-7,J/4 hl4 Z"'~S I o{/c-x! eM/.,(,./d Jv I1-ACf V/()/A-talVS !.
rM~ c/fhth fJmEA.C/me~j ~ c/U6"- p~-ss d/1usc-"S 0;;
~t5 1iftM ~ ~udc-~~ !1Me71d'/Uc-d5. II /~ A4e:,.kcu¢'l'eVh,.
f/.J Mc-7tI/t!J~ /;c-u?} rM/lf (,() //Ul'YJl'lks f},lE pPlvdccl :3 f.t;i/~ !M.d ONB sAavc-x. 9oRtk-r< M6/lC~ </h6 ~t~/ olJc)(S /U() L'V
&-tLI<./~I.JI~£ IId'v;fy. ~t! /J/51-~ VOCA-holVlJl d//ssc'S) Itttd.
MAI:JlJiIll5 A IJ IN i/rJsc£) cZus/-cciy jJo//ey tuliA If» cXC:-71(!/Sc--

- . 5 - ----- --------..;;;~- - --

Case 1:04-cv-00759-DDD-JDK Document 1 Filed 03/29/2004 Page 9 of 22

I Oie&9lf;o-Jl4/ ;[)I?tJY;V!h1s. liAS" d).C( htJu.e.

jJo/Ic.tfc~ .

UN Sl'9N/'fft1l( ~ Ovo-J.1. e~eclJ UN f/cA./l!A-I(:!C/J dCJt<M ~ CO I?- -
housiM[ glAl'f~ jJ/ZBS6-7&/ ~i~1V/Ft!A>vf Mea1Vtl /VJi:s )0- /I

hUmJt1NS /lESf J9-1t,-d !L<E5!1"/lJ<1Y-a.c( /f/b'2ds.

@ ,~~/;/iil~!y._~Je"___,t:?~~'~_~__f):;__ rqfAfs Y-o._Yadcv/,-/ ~cVIf:-W
_/tAJd ei7lrls <k tl-/LtbT Itfm67fL11?1(:;;-x/-'-

. M!lj~/t oJ- r;A~ j/t15 dE~/V~'"$ /HLd / ~~ eu,qz.t:/Li1

Or IN rj/16 Mldcll6 t>f (/he; 9Ud0/9 I 2sl//GU/s

OA/C. ~/v,.f-/

hr OuielZS oJ- de-po,q/9 f/OA/. /tICJSf o"}- us ~.I?.s s{;qys 01- dc-7Jt1,<.f

Me ,I)//OIU 1J?AJed

I/A,£ICJuS tlz>ull!-TS tulJt:-x£ OU~ ~Sc-S ~

~N1"
Me plA-''0ils J<hL;d /15 IACjc-xJ ~~A..6 yt/U€CI us. fK(
(jA~ y.cdc-ut! /)det:hON &-JeXS tA./h&-:c::£ bUG h/'fcl /9~(5SS l 14--/1 C/..h& ~~/61/~t Lej'AI 1l1/1!e:-7/Als ck rM/~ f(C81V~;r, JJdc

!f/h eiJl1h1/;eLS whe:-XJS Wb- ~~- v" -r1uA /fy oIc-7V/'e--c/ /1/1 /I&:!..~

ss r/.b C/A£ CXtIs,dc wo.e-Id J/UC!/ud/IUf cM&- (J;u.,t?s M~tfA 54
({ IAJAdetl.(l?-f~ !9-Nd !,lJeK 0<;- 1Jet!e'55 c/-o IAa-; !,lJRHR/"c-S JI ~,)-
'1 /l1d Jl/!e6-ss ck Mc- ;?At1A£S.
If Mus!- k ,uofccf} rM-1-t eJvly cl6'lh/~;ES tu;~ /J(':7f.C/~

/iV1 C)r.uit'etAI ;f.et//ePU:5 W6-le.6 se=/,=~ 1-J£. w,.: ~sJ-<::X5.J

ClAdsE tdJo /Jtf#cd tUGJT cfo C!/J J<1/IEAft;;' y/J~-/re. (L(:-7nov,q I Ok/e71~

we /J.)67lt:: Nt) T J.-tthN5rc"Uc:-d.

L>e//e:-veci t'f6 A ~ ,Itld iJl i&:

ft; /'1I/t"tJAJ .

!llJoV!Je7t /Jd oj tt.t:..ffl/,',4fiow W/f$ pt:x/c-t,.Gl:1kd OAJd

fl9l~e-e /l-b/M kh) /iN /VJnA-k"' &ItA5c'-/ ~/< Y-hti /IlJS Pel-RIM

fl6 WIJS It.J~:-6'e vee! oJ his j 0 6 fJJfet. (b/npJI9I/vI A..cj ~ <I-r~r.-

Case 1:04-cv-00759-DDD-JDK Document 1 Filed 03/29/2004 Page 10 of 22

{J~AI fWl) V6'dJ4( Il:/ywlf tllAJ j)dmab-~

ys /;1. jYJ DdAiAloE A})1ffl1JfN 2utfc- tunS

/C4/1y /1!]'5/IlIlk1

tJ,:' IbJ W UiotV'I / /It;tlll:flU,,.-<-f tJ,67U )'£ l,-,r:-:5 I, o.vcd ~e

sds tYf Cf/;€ aht:7l'llcl4/s US eel Yf!J SfMI Y/J&- /AJt!affl'/Vf d6f;r;//C.&

iIv Aimi,vis,klJ-h'vci dL,t:V'flV'ec- /dd/lcss'Mj %;~ mAIic-)f

tvrts NO i Jl1N&,ucJttxj.
b; ~) de"//I'AIe:; tJ,~6'f440 1U/l~/IV,do tu'lS bdr b&rk
</Ai slnfc-s /Aim/llGs WG ~e be"1 ~,t(!£C/ </d lit/&- Witf.4

a9- IN ~~ Ihv UNSj)6'e/fGd ;ZB1Sdtv;. 1t1~)o~lly

-Mf:'--S£ S~

Mnies Me Mu!tdetl-6xs) tAplsf /blI/J oJM~-e l/,iJle:uf lJ9J9rd(:~

/ Ai/ff~6#c-:(. l/lJc!/denf wh,C-h O/¥ VL~ed o~ {),,{ p/:J:uf Jc-~

{u",ey ;)Ci) ;;60«. /)e-inlivt£. 0c»(I/I7JE fY~~tu>1S ~A/~

11S519u/fed whe;v hB ~u6Sfce;( ~e /l A/()-Mt:21f /lAd /t.A:J

11llhJY die-!-, D11l~/.woccl . , f I J :b,:=/o.urs 1-0 /9 £/lst/;;/I/U/HV

1!e/;ljllJu ~ SEd" /I7lCI IJdhe-/leCI ~ tfL,dly t/tJ. /J Mo-Mf91T d,df.
0" 'tJ,8 C41/~ ;!Alt. M(!.l1y s~/~cI il /tldMt7l.jZUe,,Lc-;e/ yd

eIY-!J~ elf Cf/J/s fxd oil. ydU Ve ~.£)T rO/~7 fo enT:'

/3//Je~ c/;cI IUOf eJ<l-f d;J!/A)El'< CIAni IUlf;{'; .

II~ A:iM/~/s:l,epl;(/t? G lZ/cV~ec: 0/1./ rtIJ; 5 r11):J'lte-x:- wAS ;1l

So Nor /11V.St.u8U:?d.
be';A/~~<= ~sse/~ Aillslln//.IIhJ 4 /lAashM tJlc1t1-i/f/ci ::pto,-;
-1: ._--

Case 1:04-cv-00759-DDD-JDK Document 1 Filed 03/29/2004 Page 11 of 22

L~6/1/lJbrJ /lstd /-I t!hllp//9-/,V y.o;e /I AOi?A1t/1 ~t::- d;¥$~
~ </0 h;/!.1 CM/fl "tM.llf /S AN 6-VII ~L) 9-d£ ,q?U6V/;; ICe /'7t'tJNj I 1/ w; /Ilt;Vc-X: </oueA ~:s fleJaC.JJ
We ffS5f:;'/iT vA..t1! tMese fJhys/C!A/ Ih../d 1/6/tt;/f! Muse t:Jj CJA2 d ~---frI/MiES !LIol o-dy V/&4fES Oct.e sliM 1fr,-,6U1n' 1 Gd .
£rf!'ts. /Jf'/9-/~7 !IZUS/ ~IJ UNUSu,q! fJc,lv/slJ/J16-~ /ll¢tSd v/'cJ
Ides ft Ou~ L57 I!mt:--u:(mevf i&fiJfs </-tf CJa,< /Zeit f'c;,(J,/ /fNP)-
1,ee~Jt( V'T S pet::d .

~qs ~cs=-o_

IJ 9de--n: FhU /vjuu.//(W t1vn pd/,',ut tMc- I!csjJOuled; jRU
'/he//? IAd,'v/dU/l I /Wd.Vf1-'-6/'"I ~i'li c)o e,rMc-;e t1,""/'~

Lu,r/A UA6 "fSlrwcflt.«/s /I~fecl llU t;/Jc: INS vc-hdto/U 0¥.mver

/J!Cds £'sled)/U (JAG JAJS A-~~.IV 5~/l«l /t1/1N'uAI /fS-

;f 1!c-){/,4//us c/-a LMe l1ixJv6 d,,;/ns (J6lcflAo/l/~ J1~~ 4~

LetA-I ~s +0

Mlffglj~ts/ Re/;[ION e;;J S~2;- yc?/Vex,y/Iy It<k

~C'-1c""»6aAi t)jJC:'~dt(yus M/l~~/ ,41/~//A6/(::- 19-1

o~
€) TIlMJS~ (Jd-hoIU6)C.5 ~ rJ 9dc/lA/7-//(!//,1y o.e d4tc-x:.
/~! 'tne.itf,( (liJ.rrf )U67:;!s (jAE ~AC/;q/lds e/uuNcVAIcCJ
flU {fAe M/iPti//;:

or @ IIwFfKd V()m/v/l ( (Ju IViI,vb d I4>'YIl'lfE<:>

:t;5.<l () </0 ePtd

phlf/t"JI /jfl!/~f tMe LeSfXJlJd~1 <}A/( ils vio(/ltovV 07ou~

- - - - - - - - - - -"-- -- -- ---- ---- ---------- - ----- --- ---

Case 1:04-cv-00759-DDD-JDK Document 1 Filed 03/29/2004 Page 12 of 22
@ &mfJe/ ltesp()NC/cNf ~ l!€/&nSE fJAlYU ~W~) ~/C;f5<=t
j4'WC/ !U/eo 13~){) ~/J/l f¥I/YJ1 /u/shz"f/ Jc! 5~-7£&j~ fro n..I M -
Y-/1e (1e:)J~XA-1 ID;JU!IC1!-/ON O~ 'rinr.l5JC:X CM~711 It) ~W;f:lC.-
11f(!illy.
e GU1-7C.i1 O<Me;e LE!t6~ (jAc- ~/ll /}1~ clt:?5M -.Just ~
PrtOfk"X I/L) r.;Ae::- /dc7lC'"S I oJ Cfir5/Id5: .

Case 1:04-cv-00759-DDD-JDK Document 1 Filed 03/29/2004 Page 13 of 22

RECEIVED

MAR 2 9 2004

R(l8~PT H.. ~;J~P!lj/fLL. ~I.rr.t<
WESIEHN DrSfRICT Of LOUISIANA ,jn~t.~;:v;;,. LulJf;;IAI'IA

t (1 tJ&::t-!uad BuRelt-< /) -I:m miZMloAi

~Nd ~StO#1S EN~t.ec/Y)eA.Jf (.r. e.. 6.)

££t!eMllr MAIN66S,

7;/M.I$~td ~

Oltt:d"k~ (f'. D,C.)

~;U'-f A ~/ .;ltv) J.OO«

%e VJ4A:ie,,! / sht:/l"11:
Co;U!tJIIC/,/i j)jM,h 6;ld&!,CwAI ~;1(7 .II
re-"):£,dAy} Lou/s/t/IU<./ f 19.5« ...
lo r iAe5T ~te. I1dml4)l5'kAf,i.lr...': ,e~cdr ~e;'<'~f Jo~A''-"
foe _OeM/~1 0 t il&!J::--s.s '10 !/Ae &ds i"/-/VcI ~/ MEm 6(:-71'5
01(& e. ~) Dell4ti,.)(:;7:i.

De7t.( !J...),rtdfffll/! ~c7ll}1:

_ .

lM/~ /~ 'IT -r"lev~ tlNC/(:7llld/YJ'NISf,e~I/(../c kn~r

gle,}- ;J£deeclullC:: '~;e w,c= deN/,Q! t)7<J;.e,e) oc-fI9-'-/u$ -

/I-{'tlC5S Yo +lit: {bc6 /Md If-I,€~~ J*/no/r ~e ~(i4/ oJ If<t!-

6~ -k
(l~/.) st{i-t.I

Yf/tJk~;4{-/k.d£s'tl!t.l4s-NCUYAI-Ic~lewJe

1t/;/.2A~ /S
tMt? 'jCl<3 -

/1 vleJ~fiON 0T -
jJRd~5 a/Fltt.:Jc: 0:;

'Me· r}<M !l/11etldmt:M A-lVcil9 l//o~lo"J ()rI/uIi1,q~ e'iltls if:/ AiVd~.3) /oC'#'7e-!C1 "'+ jJllfc .3 0 r ~~ I iv/YI;:t/~~ -
tI~hooL,

f/tst /)5
I

/t1L.lG-. e. e--l.'"" tJK (J:. N.S.) ;)e--!,4{~l./bE w,.;,)//-

. - -.. -~-.-.-~--

Case 1:04-cv-00759-DDD-JDK Document 1 Filed 03/29/2004 Page 14 of 22

(lASe:, ;JeuctAlf i..; Jecic...:rA! .Didlltef ~d () T /JjJ/~71I$J •

'f &:ds , sWe Ctu,f.:, lMJoI fO~1 ()? Imml7./!Af,~N 4~/s !.L/n/71'

pfio,v

de. -L /}-7y] evltl-Ied ofiJ ty //I-W, ;?-f !e7f'Sf- .

/f'i/c! tlOtA~ s /It!ct::5S IJ l/Aci' L4w LI/;£~ht~y ez,tc::-nrc!...,,<;/, 19,5' Uk/I flS Ik!f!esS cfo rMc tbtt,efs ~;lt}UfA IT ILEjJlkd lel&~p?cwc -

&4'1/ S~f~.
1!Jd1iOA.JltllYJ /IS /I 7-O£c,,!;:Ie"7C ~o5C ~/Iy. t;---/W1c-"X

££?Sidt:S I N ()M~-;e (Mu~E'S tf);e OM5£ fl9£ts 01 'llJE IA'<'/"'I'~
eel j-/,:}It::s. 't1ie Cb(Ied- t!/f/(s oMlr te-h~Q;LIC ,iv jJ/~& lJezc:=---

i~ 'll//Jd6t..'i/lff~. SiA-lW "ute ~rc=-.Je.. ~ t./.cl.l·1I r'A-J -

QfI/UUA£Y 1')./ ~M~ . .I D/IJ~x de-fp/tVc-C?"i; M/D I ~t/~ p~T

~et3'l'J IJ/J/t:: to tLJd-/JtZ-f #Jt: ~Ilfs I eJtI£ L,qwf&X's ~d -

me- 9~il't McM);~. llJei'/-hc--;e h~6" bc=-C7V 7"V/:/1/ AM /lCU:~5

10 <Me ,L/I/U J·,,/;;(A/t due- 'hJ

1.u.o:I9I~ &u,vsel duhf·

I -I"fc3 ~;s fern / tJ p/I-lit: h(:;-x.~. fldd/floPIQIIy #.~7Ze:: /s /VG

< +Yletv£;t""x:" IfU <M~ j);.w,.. ~ fl~ OtO:. lcrl ;@£Jc7' ~ .
ffNc KJ&I.e~_ /9// 1191/'~7 ~~IAI~/'AJ a)VfJ( ~(;pd /,1./0-«:-; -
which /'111/1:: ~,I-IliC.:: l,me :,rn, ~f;ON fUr: ..cesrrJ«liy
r1S~ iIJ/'S 'Nsf,YuloN ~ 7-1X- l/Ac- f'€cJb/t:;-7'YJ~ /)~ IVDfc:c/ .

be/otJ ~

As AUg::. t!.. e. ') MI9;Alc-~ _NiV-iJ .t?/tS~ fcA-C/',A.li'-.) t!v"r:"

Wei Fb:t! e 1V141ec! <k; .7-,VL- !la.t,cS dfl,ly /letess -10 It LA..u .

L6tZIM'-y {.UI¥A upd.4M TeJ<.fk>oL's.lUee..vlf de:=dtde'C/~"ls~'

#Jt! I f1iOf'r.A

9a(El'R &tI,<TS /Ht//) !h/Jsf/?A4' fit!t!t:::55 I/.d (,lAc -

fy;JCN/../kjt,~~e_ &"1;;U(~~ 5_,_{!OA/S~Cj~!(lvi </j){=~_~_~/,6e t ~//11(:--

Case 1:04-cv-00759-DDD-JDK Document 1 Filed 03/29/2004 Page 15 of 22

//IUr'/-tf·/r'O{l.J (f)/L/ ;'IJ/lM /71-~ f,'orJ ~~! t!/f3t?s. 'tIie r&.s.
1)e:k~fltJ,J :s11l:x/1/1?<J M 4~"fI!/ J .£cE/,"1Cf:'S vAAl- /lll t/1blfrt:~
hOU5itV1 tl.I. jI}·S. ote. L /I c.t::. .. cleI41,vf~ ?f/ov/cI~~ #1&-,
b&iG /-',14/ tUeects ;
ME .LJ/J?/9-le I (l,1.I/LISE ,2,Ub5·ltule- :;,jS ft:7r7 ,',v;J1~c
IS IIv/ld6gtl/d~ ~ /l//ed I.c'.E tkl/lIAJe'6s 1VC36c( 90": 10,
r,1ow"t.li ;t,erlSONS:

(I) {);:.E ~/'Y1/~ fe C!t(JI/.I.::it::" I CAtf.I~(}r,A~Ie y;4~-~

~~~(/I ~(Jti~/oJM1cl~ ~,,(;eec/ j-d':' ;'mffl/f£;;r, .c?~

L IltjA. ;;o/;.)~ .
(2.) W/G ..:::£).J/J1;t;f,: S,,/;~/ilulc: ~M3eld() A/tJl

ko«.J IIY!M If,eN/-' ',pM krIWS ('('/h~(:A /5 vexy ~ -

fJ/~~ CVe ,..../ 'fJ1(" ::::>c71Sfj,vcC( L"IW!c)"'s.
@) Co~,deJV.J,A~l'( W,w, O'"f l.e;"'1 //4.#*'71:.5;

I ~ NOI 7U,ll,eHIVI~€C-1 ~;vi.J

,.

0) A dehtlivc~ /Jrl$ '-lAc: ~fA ~ 'k V7I:ZJse= A/s Ot(,/,~

Lt:T# I dulL6e( .LA¢h:-x t/lJ4tV ~E O.v~ /~/.lCJse:./ up'

ft)AI hl/vt b; '-ME' /~:.J~ It' luto/J .

C/llt:- ~M .::;::W

I

//0.//YJ/IIe Ler~ I fu(lVS e/ ~y::;,/c-?vI is, N -

tldez~;/fe; .j.J Meed' OU': ;l,/c.~/s.

.

(1/Lt;1!!f CIJ/Is 1))1 kk,dNlIvd

c..;/;e ''&/kd t2i4lk, ()/.IIy" f~/,=";Jkw~ /'" ~M~ he-xc- /~ /;1,/ -

Ja.e ,4dc5'M Ie

M y~aL/"'. 0-'lI!E i/h:? s.fo;7{: /,v/rMfc-:' IVI1()

9 !fLc: 4/1 '~11/1 /.,tJ('1151 Cl /tLI ) --'- ,t}m £0;YJ I C)U o}- 5tPiE A1l,l(:! -

~/J/l.t!' tf) t-i11Y n_~~_~1y M~~l.'S.__IJ-~~ ~ bRCJ~l. I CA/../I C!~I/

Case 1:04-cv-00759-DDD-JDK Document 1 Filed 03/29/2004 Page 16 of 22

My .JII1nI/Y .4LJ£L)l-d {(Collcd" ..0Vt:.1 t3.A;/~ ~ ~iies /U<='''rl.-

t"L/() ... bc-'X-6 I'~ /lJe:-"1<.J

Ml9sS/le/;t..6<:~ ~d tf)/,1c-"X ~-s .

tlvs f /l/.Ja.lf I> Itr.OO fr:"X. cA I/.

/lcIc/,'!tOAJIlII'! ,.:rJe ,A),{)f OcF/lJ diE ~ ;t671Ch cj.,I,e- ~.t'r., <fpc

#€ wl/tEt t.!~//s O;vty k/e-povc.-': c)cJ UJer!. K. ttJ~j.) <,iI1&- ::5f;q~,s C),

pc; /YIy C/lSGS 41VcI /.1 d(jWCS?'- j<1£

.L-ej'A/ t!la/!!. ~ '9<1/2

&/1$ kJli./A felt?p/Jovc (!~(s h~cIj}l!tJvcd ~~ '/"v<5",

fh, .,4/1-/ /MM'fJUf.uf c,u/-/h j,~,/cd b.Jtl/sh hll.j(i{.;,'r7~·
r - (bm;o;1t::-UYOA./>,4-A.d tA-IKJ I:::' pON - G'A.M::Itk- 0 f 140)
- ~/n~hml.:3S /t.CIy 0/1../ ~(;;--;e dei)4IA..J<:CS f(.) /£.Cr~-/0r
L'1AI ~~KS. ;VOW WC;~C AI/ ~c~ 5E!,4je,,4~e;:c~ I~d d"~
J7-c-x.e<Jt oh~s J'1NCf My /9~t!e;$ fo l/AG ~~7S IS. ~ . e:I.l/9<.l ItAok ::x=-v<:~(r..ees!-,e,elec! /t~c/; h;O<..i'diy-L :A-"'1
be-,tV'9 hot.<5CC(_IN tME ~e doliYl~ t.<-i,'hIi W,f.A'>"~/ //V -
M~';c?~. ~c Df c:JJo /rLC?' J',I:9j>5IJ /Uv/2::Yc/c(5A!!.5 ~­
oMex..s y/o/~7/f O?JEA-Llezs .

-L. ILAO()~ All .:r/)?mi~;lIt/-h~ j)e·frfl#~cS t-U/'/-A ?&tCIeei
Cou£/ Ci15~ W OA1~ Cb~/Yl ~ jJ;€Ov,c/c- uS w/'I-A:.

(fi) /l;e~'1-e£ i-o iy~ 00'" Ut/l! 1;£1675

~/LJ()

(@ A ~. ,PA-ic/ Gill 11<!i!€5$ /II vAe ~.

~_ _ ' _

,___,_

-"L "",_____ _

----

Case 1:04-cv-00759-DDD-JDK Document 1 Filed 03/29/2004 Page 17 of 22

f~/?A6tlC"6 /WI)

P~I/;clG 'f Jr.

l'n,mi'JM/;·o;<./ b(:--iA /iVeES (,U14{ (,(jJcII'Ik/ r41/n

,.e,; tOA/ /4tus a/ttI·lecl ~6 ~ ~de&:Sre;vc../S -

~M C#;€ 9a:I~1 tkt~TS AM:! ,&.vyd Ol-.L.,d?,tMf -

/()N ~l!eA-/s. ~b

.:::liT. p;?4;lrdcf t?o...M~ I /n/YJ11R4h'~-v ~r;,veE.s J91<.d.I .?<./IYA -9-f I~ 9.i(/~-C5) lJou~s ;~ <bit:? !,q0</ //d.&rL(/. CJK

§ ...:Lv iJAti /flle,l(.,l./t4;'f.l6~ e71&~JflIc- OC/It! 7~,tc~ /;).,t/(!£
<Jo /1 9GC/.e;t,a! M~lvt/ ~<!.I#C; t),< ~ O/../ec fA6k7
~,4f. JAee/s ~ ~ ~qr£6'mav7

1T1,(:;.J lV"rnci'AIV~~O: ~~ ~ ~\tl-~~

18fi A-ht:nv A.)AhI ~ A,..;~ NO:

u Abr'11b9lt "1-'UiS1.~

Na: Ak~ II..II'm1I$ ;q.vo) ~ 4r -~ ~ ~ IJ..~-aa=6st;oS-csrC>

00: /AR. gll'h7~ C):/J!U5/o,u I Y--h€ Disf-t,ef' j)/~d:JJt!. ug. ~/1'Z /fMItON ~C:! ClL~M-S eIUroA:Mevl-(F: tlr G.)

!Us. IlJAMi( kes,; o:;rte.ee /IV d.-A~r= (j:: (!. e) tJ~les ~
~ub-~'t!&

., Case 1:04-cv-00759-DDD-JDK Document 1 Filed 03/29/2004 Page 18 of 22

U ..g. Dis-kcl (JuL.!; ~~ });s#-lef:09- Latt'silA-Q

'1M?,i~ ~,e ~()m: ~ tuI15h/Af~~ skff::7'/ 9G6'

(ad /V(}/lvA 17)&"W

~tt I t)!JiX(

We. Ps~

'-'Ztt'\r1~+ ,-.err-H-€.. Q\.{V L~~\ a~~ ~

"'~rtc( be~~ n- S V)ot '21 ('G2.-t~~~ '...(2 '''''' lWtW\t'rvah'O\.f

fV'-o ~ ""f' 1 ~ 'M 0 r-e\P\.{ ~ I J\l ~ 0 ~ ~ 0"" ..s ~ vUlt:h.'~

-hl ~ ~ /II Zi " .... I l{+- ill qf) (1) Sp. . cI .f.' t?.!1~ YQ 'ttL\(' ,,~ ~

t:>..uu.1 +e.-

Il\ls c....ta.'t'\.ea.f' • (S-- ,'\11",eA.ao/)

~ 1~ (NS 0-><.i"-u,tl 0..., ~tz:,lAda..c( '2t{~ <::> Y'~tu'~

, 5 },_v-5'
{AI -<1- ' \fe

~ ?'CC"2SlS
'" OT

f-o

tt...~
~

~

~
(C ~"

U LaIrC{"'j l:;>e"..
f1>.v '2( b&.••J- .....

w\-.e..>U.l~c-

~\
G> \,.{ "- 0<>. '-1' .\- {C-=~ Y'''-'jr ~.f,' ~ ~V Io",,,{o ft.> ....,
~ Li b VZ(v::! l ~ '-U h~"~ -ho W\r2t~ ~ q,v (jUJ \1 V"~V.eao.-(t,

@ ~ r Wl.Oi f',9v L·~<;d C-'Zt/Ly W
~V\~ We..v~ LV'! "Z(boqt +WO W~~ ..

~ ~c (,,-<1Qv7

- I'

-, Case 1:04-cv-00759-DDD-JDK Document 1 Filed 03/29/2004 Page 19 of 22

MS. NANCY HOOKS OFFICER IN CHARGE U.S. ICE-OAKDALE 1010E. WHATLEYRD OAKDALE, LA 71463

ALEXANDER NOAULA # A 78635873
C.P.C.F.2 DORM D 26362 HWY 15
FERRIDAY, LA 71334

JANUARY 28, 2004

RE: COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO SATISFY INS DETENTION STANDARDS AND REQUEST FOR AGENCY INTERVENTION.
Dear Ms. Hooks:
I am one of the many detainees recently transferred from the Oakdale detention Facility on January 12,2004, to the Concordia Parish Correctional Facility. I submit this letter to your office in seek ofICE intervention in the very serious situation and constitutional violations forced upon our persons.
As you are already, aware I'm sure INS detainees and their proceedings are civil in nature. Thus, we are subject to civil detention as opposed to criminal incarceration. The Supreme Court has held the opinion that 'deportation is undoubtedly a harsh procedure, but is not punishment.' Pursuant to the INS detention standards manual INS detainees must not be detained with inmates serving criminal sentences. Yet, this is exactly what has transpired as a result of error recent transfer to CPCF 2. I am currently housed in the same dorm as Louisiana State Department of Corrections inmates, I wonder who the suit would fall on were I to be assaulted in any unwanted nature. I am almost certain that our transfer into state inmate dorms was done without consultation with agency authorities. The reason could be simply that prison officials are not aware ofthe standards to be maintained for an INS detainee. Not even pretrial inmates in criminal proceedings are housed with convicted criminals.
The other issue we bring to your office's attention is the fact that under Federal constitutional law all persons subject to imprisonment are afforded the right and/or access
1

Case 1:04-cv-00759-DDD-JDK Document 1 Filed 03/29/2004 Page 20 of 22
to the courts and no person of authority acting under color of law shall impede on this right. This right includes constant communication with one's legal counsel of choice, if one were afforded at least for civil proceedings. According to this, institution's policy detainees needs are apparently supposed to be met by an Inmate Substitute Counsel Program. Well that program is insufficient for immigration, let alone a pretrial detainee. We have been informed expressly that the program is not created to meet INS litigation requirements. Furthermore, it is in contravention ofthe law, specifically the privacy act of the United States, to require all persons to submit their legal materials to one individual who is selected at the prison authorities discretion. Who knows what this inmate does with other inmates' legal papers, this is a serious privacy concern for a lot of us. Pursuant to Federal case law, an inmate has a right to consult with a jailhouse lawyer of choice. See also Wolffv. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539,41 L.Ed 2d 935, 94 S.Ct 2963 (1974); Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 21 L. Ed 2d 718, 89 S.Ct 747(1969)
[Inmate acting as "jailhouse lawyer" has fundamental right under First Amendment to provide legal assistance to other inmates].
We also understand that by regulations we must be provided with access to prepaid calling procedures. This is especially so, because of the unique situation we fall under as aliens, particularly the very fact that our family members do not necessarily reside within the continental/territorial U. S. is undisputed that telephone service companies do not provide collect call services for international phone users. As it is already, these companies cOl!tinue to demand exorbitant rates from our families. We do not agree with this policy of being forced to assume such ludicrous rates where there are reasonable alternatives [this institution's phone provides three options to complete a call, namely~ collect, person to person, and prepaid~ however, the third option cannot be exercised because for whatever inconceivable reason the facility has not authorized the phone company to sell prepaid phone minutes]. Any failure by your office to abide by this
,
agency's procedures amounts to the violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 US.C.§ 701, and 8 US.c. § 1329.
The last but not least of issues is the fact that our transfer from Oakdale FDC, at a time when most of us had pending petitions in the Federal Courts without sufficient
2

Case 1:04-cv-00759-DDD-JDK Document 1 Filed 03/29/2004 Page 21 of 22

notification violates the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and these sorts of arbitrary transfers in the future should be exercised with due diligence.
For the reasons articulated herein, we collectively hereby compel and / or implore your office to intervene in this matter on our behalf as all efforts so far made at the prison level have failed to yield any result. Your immediate attention and / or response to this complaint will be appreciated.
Respectfully Submitted,

(Affected Complainant)

Alexander W. Ndaula (Complainant)

(Affected Complainant)

(Affected Complainant)

cc: New Orleans District Director New Orleans, Louisiana
Human Rights Watch Families for Freedom

Office ofthe Inspector General's Complaints Washington, DC

Senator Kennedy~ Senator Charles Schumer~ Senator Hillary Clinton~ and the respective Senators ofthe followings states; New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Florida.
Office of Internal Audit-INS Washington, DC.

3

Case 1:04-cv-00759-DDD-JDK Document 1 Filed 03/29/2004 Page 22 of 22

CONCORDIA PARISH CORRECTIONAL FACILITY II
26362 IDGHWAY 15 FERRIDAY, LA. 71334

ADMINISTRATIVE RE:MEDY PROCEDURES INMATE GRIEVANCE

YOU MUST SEND THIS FORM TO THE WARDEN WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE INCIDENT OF WHICH YOU ARE COMPLAINlNG. SEND FORM BY INMATE MAIL. LOCKDOWN SEND BY
MAll.. ORDERLY. NO DUPLICATE GRIEVANCE FORMS. SEPARATE FORM FOR EACH GRIEVANCE. YOU Wll..L RECEIVE A RESPONSE WITHIN 30 DAYS.

INMATE'S NAME

DORM
H.

'ih I I NAME OF FACll.JTY PERSONNEL INVOLVED
?de CO" . "-

EMERGENCY

REVISED GRIEVANCE MUST BE REF'lLED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF EVENT wmCH IS

THE BASIS OF THE GRIEVANCE. OR WITHIN 5 DAYS OF THE RETURN OF THE

GRIEVANCE, WHICHEVER IS LATER.

_

~

DATE:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ INMATE SIGNATURE,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

'""""''..''

 
 FILED Case 1:04-cv-00759-DDD-JDK Document 50 Filed 12/01/2004 Page 1 of 11

USOC, WESTERN DISTRICT OF LA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

R08£Rl H. 2H£MWEll, CLERK

C¥) DATE 16 I , art

By

i

WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

PATRICK BROWN, et al., Plaintiffs
VERSUS
TOM RIDGE, et al., Defendants

CIVIL ACTION SECTION IIpll NO. CV04-07S9-A
JUDGE DEE D. DRELL MAGISTRATE JUDGE JAMES D. KIRK

ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before the court is a civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983 by Patrick Brown, Freda Gustave, lsmael (lsmet)
Karaca, Eric Bell, Ramit Narang, Franklin Moreno, Leroy Bacchus,
Rafiu Abimbola, Prince C. Brown, Gervase Blackwood, Hussein Nasrallah, Augusto Moreira, Alexander W. Ndaula, and Curtis Banks. 1
The plaintiffs were all being detained in the Concordia Parish Correctional Center in Ferriday, Louisiana, by the Department of Homeland Security's Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement
("BICE"), pending deportation. The named defendants are Tom Ridge (Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security), BICE Field
Director Christine Davis in New Orleans, BICE Officer in Charge
1 Although is it this court's general practice to sever plaintiffs in civil rights cases, due to the individuality of each plaintiff's circumstances, experiences, and injuries, and the procedural problems inherent in joining several plaintiffs' claims, that has not yet been done in this case and it is not necessary at this point. There appears to be only one plaintiff remaining in this action.

Case 1:04-cv-00759-DDD-JDK Document 50 Filed 12/01/2004 Page 2 of 11

Nancy Hooks (Oakdale facility), the Concordia Parish Sheriff's Department, the CPDC Warden (unnamed), and the CPDC Chief of

Security Lance Moore. This case was referred to the undersigned

Magistrate Judge for further consideration after an objection was

filed to the Report and Recommendation dated July 23, 2004 (Doc.

Item 41) by plaintiff Alexander W. Ndaula.

1.

In April 2004, each plaintiff was ordered by the court to pay

the filing fee or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") (Doc. Items 4-16). In response, plaintiffs Ismael

(Ismet) Karaca and Gervase Blackwood filed motions to voluntarily

dismiss their complaints, which were granted (Doc. Items 29, 33,

36, 37). Plaintiffs Freda Gustave, Ramit Narang, Franklin Moreno,

and Curtis Banks failed to comply with the court's order of April

2, 2004, and did not submit either the filing fee or an IFP

application (Doc. Items 4, 7, 8, 16).

Accordingly, their

complaints should be dismissed for failure to comply with an order

of this Court. See Rule 41 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure; Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 82 S.Ct. 1386,8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962); Gonzalez v. Trinity Marine Group. Inc.,

117 F.3d 894, 898 (5th Cir. 1997).

2.

Plaintiffs Eric Bell, Freda Gustave, Ramit Narang, Franklin

Moreno, Hussein Nasrallah, Patrick L. Brown, Curtis Banks, Augusto

2

Case 1:04-cv-00759-DDD-JDK Document 50 Filed 12/01/2004 Page 3 of 11
Moreira, Leroy Bacchus, and Hussein Nasrallah have failed to notify the court of their new addresses. Mail addressed to these plaintiffs from this court was returned as undeliverable on August 2, 2004, August 9, 2004, August 24, 2004, September 8, 2004, September 27, 2004, September 30, 2004, October 4, 2004, October 8, 2004, October 12, 2004, October 15, 2004, and November 1, 2004, November 18, 2004, and November 22, 2004. Local rule LR41.3W provides that the failure of a pro se litigant to keep the Court apprised of an address change may be considered cause for dismissal for failure to prosecute when a notice is returned to the Court for the reason of an incorrect address and correction is not made to the address for a period of 30 days. Since Eric Bell, Freda Gustave, Ramit Narang, Franklin Moreno, Hussein Nasrallah, Patrick L. Brown, Curtis Banks, Augusto Moreira, Leroy Bacchus, and Hussein Nasrallah failed to inform the court of their address changes within 30 days after their mail was returned to the Clerk of Court, and have made no inquiry about this case nor attempted in any way to further prosecute the case, these plaintiffs' complaints should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to LR41.3W and Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as interpreted by the Court and under the Court's inherent power to control its own docket. Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.734 (1962) i Rogers v. Kroger Co., 669 F.2d 317, 320-21 (5th Cir. 1982).
3

Case 1:04-cv-00759-DDD-JDK Document 50 Filed 12/01/2004 Page 4 of 11
3. On August 9, 2004, plaintiff Rafiu Abimbola filed a motion for extension of time in which to file an objection to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. Item 4); a thirty day extension was granted (Doc. Item 43). However, Abimbola never filed any objection to the Report and Recommendation. Therefore, Abimbola's complaint should be dismissed in accordance with the un-objected to Report and Recommendation, as well as for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies, as discussed below.
4. All plaintiffs have failed to exhaust their administrative remedies as to each claim alleged in the complaint. Section 1997e(a), as amended by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) I provides that "[n]a action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under Section 1983 ... by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted." Exhaustion is mandatory, irrespective of the forms of relief sought and offered through administrative remedies. Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 n. 6, 121 S.Ct. 1819 (2001). The exhaustion requirement of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e applies to all inmate suits about prison life, whether they involve general circumstances or particular episodes, and whether they allege excessive force or some other wrong. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532, 122 S.Ct. 983, 992 (2002). Also, Clifford v.
4

Case 1:04-cv-00759-DDD-JDK Document 50 Filed 12/01/2004 Page 5 of 11
Gibbs, 298 F.3d 328, 330-331 (5 th Cir. 2002) ; Wright v. Hollingsworth, 260 F.3d 357, 358 (5 th Cir. 2001). Also, Days v. Johnson, 322 F.3d 863 (5th Cir. 2003). Resort to a prison grievance process must precede resort to a court. Porter, 534 U.S. at 529, 122 S.Ct. at 990.
Plaintiffs provided a copy of a grievance purported to be filed on behalf of all BICE detainees, which is signed by Prince Brown, Rafiu Abimbola, and Gervase Blackwood, is only raises issues as to collect calls, access to the prison law library, and access to typewriters (Doc. Item 1) There is one other grievance, filed by Gervase Blackwood, concerning an incident of verbal abuse by a corrections officer (Doc. Item 1). It is clear that none of the plaintiffs have filed grievances for each and every claim alleged in the complaint. Although a lack of response may result in a waiver of the requirement of complete exhaustion of the grievance procedures, each plaintiff must show that exhaustion was at least attempted as to each claim alleged herein. Therefore, plaintiffs' complaint should be dismissed for lack of exhaustion.
5. Plaintiff Alexander Ndaula filed the sole objection to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. Item 48). Although Ndaula purports to file his objection on behalf of all plaintiffs, he cannot do so since he is not an attorney and may not represent others before
5

Case 1:04-cv-00759-DDD-JDK Document 50 Filed 12/01/2004 Page 6 of 11

this court. 2 Therefore, Ndaula's objection will considered only as to his own claims in this action.

The original complaint raises claims concerning the conditions

of confinement in the Concordia Parish Correctional Center

("CPCC"), where Ndaula was detained by BICE in 2004, pending his

deportation.

Ndaula alleges that BICE contracted with the

Concordia Parish Sheriff to house BICE detainees.

The claims in the original complaint involve denial of access to the courts, infringement of the right to religious freedom, denial of the First Amendment "right to the press" or censorship of incoming publications, unsanitary living conditions, inadequate exercise and recreation, exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, verbal abuse, and use of excessive force. There are two problems

2 Although plaintiffs moved for class certification, that has not yet been granted and, even if it were, it is unlikely that Ndaula would be permitted to act as the class representative since he is a layman proceeding pro se. Because a lay person ordinarily does not possess the legal training and expertise necessary to protect the interests of a proposed class, courts usually will not certify a class represented by a pro se litigant. Ability to protect the interests of the class depends in part on the quality of counsel, and the competence of a layman representing himself is generally too limited to allow him to risk the rights of others. Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4~h Cir. 1975) j Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure 2d: Civil § 1769.9, n.12. See also, Lightbourne, 118 F.3d at 425; McGrew, 47 F.3d at 161; Anderson v. Moore, 372 F.2d 747, 751 n.5 (5 th eir. 1967); McClain, 187 F.R.D. at 281; Washington v. CSC Credit Serv" Inc., 178 F.R.D. 95, 100 (E.D.La.), amended, 180 F.R.D. 309 (E.D.La. 1998). Moreover, Ndaula has been transferred out of the CCPC and is awaiting deportation. Therefore, Ndaula would not be an adequate class representative.
6

Case 1:04-cv-00759-DDD-JDK Document 50 Filed 12/01/2004 Page 7 of 11
with Ndaula' claims. First, as discussed above, there is no evidence in the record,
nor does Ndaula allege, that he has exhausted his claims in the prison administrative remedy procedures. Although there are two grievances filed by other inmates, to which there was allegedly no response, Ndaula has not shown that he attempted to exhaust his administrative remedies as to each claim alleged herein. Since exhaustion is mandatory, Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 n. 6, 121 S.Ct. 1819 (2001), Ndaula's complaint should be dismissed for lack of exhaustion.
Second, none of the claims cite specific instances of violations of Ndaula's constitutional rights by the named defendants, or actual injuries suffered by Ndaula. In order to establish the personal liability of a certain defendant to a plaintiff who is claiming damages for deprivation of his civil rights, that plaintiff must show that particular defendant's action or inaction was a violation of the plaintiff's civil rights. Reimer v. Smith, 663 F.2d 1316, 1322 n. 4 (5th Cir. 1981) Also, Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 106 S.Ct. 1092, 1098 n. 7, 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986). Moreover, an actual injury is a constitutional prerequisite to Section 1983 claim. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351-53, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 2180 (1996), discussing Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 97 S.Ct. 1491 (1977). The requirement that an inmate alleging a violation of Bounds must show actual injury derives
7

Case 1:04-cv-00759-DDD-JDK Document 50 Filed 12/01/2004 Page 8 of 11
ultimately from the doctrine of standing. Lewis, 518 U.S. at 349,
116 S.Ct. at 2179. See also, Chriceol v. Phillips, 169 F.3d 313,
317 (5 th Cir. 1999)
Therefore, Ndaula's complaint should be dismissed for lack of
exhaustion and for failure to state a violation of his
constitutional rights by the named defendants that is cognizable
under Section 1983.
Ndaula also objected to the recommendation that plaintiffs'
motion for class certification be denied. Since there is only one
plaintiff left in this case, this issue is moot. 3
6.
The "Concordia Parish Sheriff's Department" is not a proper
defendant. Parish "sheriff's departments" are not legal entities
capable of being sued. The State of Louisiana grants no such
3 A class may be certified under Rule 23(b) (3) only it meets the four prerequisites found in Rule 23(a) and the two additional requirements found in Rule 23(b) (3). Mullen v. Treasure Chest Casino LLC, 186 F.3d 620, 623 (5 th Cir. 1999).
Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a}, an action may be maintained as a class action if it meets the criteria of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. McGrew v. Texas Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 47 F.3d 158, 161 (5 th Cir. 1995).
The requirements for Rule 23{b} are "predominance" and "superiority": Common questions must predominate over any question affecting only individual members; and class resolution must be superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. Mullen, 186 F.3d at 624, citing Anchem Products v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 117 S.Ct. 2231, 2245, 138 L.Ed.2d 689 (1997).
It is clear that, in this case, the plaintiff lacks both numerosity and adequate representation (discussed above in footnote 2) .
8

Case 1:04-cv-00759-DDD-JDK Document 50 Filed 12/01/2004 Page 9 of 11
legal status to any Parish Sheriff's Office. Thus, the Concordia Parish Sheriff's Department is not a "person!! capable of being sued. Ruggiero v. Litchfield, 700 F. Supp. 863, 865 (M.D.La. 1988) i Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Grant Parish Sheriff's Dept., 350 So.2d 236. 238 (La. App., 3d Cir.), writ den., 352 So. 2d 235 (La. 1977) Also, Riley v. Evangeline Parish Police Jury, 630 So.2d 1314, 1320 (La. App. 3d Cir. 1993), rev'd on part on other grounds, 637 So.2d 395 (La. 1994) i Ferguson v. Stephens, 623 So.2d 711, 71415 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1993) i Garner v. Avoyelles Parish Sheriff's Dept., 511 So.2d 8 n.1 (La. App. 3d Cir. 1987). Ndaula's Section 1983 action against the Concordia Parish Sheriff's Department should be dismissed with prejudice.
Conclusion IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation issued July 23, 2004, Doc. Item 41, is hereby WITHDRAWN. Based on the foregoing discussion, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the complaint filed by Patrick Brown, Fredo Gustave, Eric Bell, Ramit Narang, Franklin Moreno, Leroy Bacchus, Rafiu Abimbola, Prince C. Brown, Hussein Nasrallah, Augusto Moreira, and Curtis Banks be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with one or more orders of this court, failure to apprise the court of a change of address, and failure to exhaust administrative remedies. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Rafiu Abimbola's complaint be
9

Case 1:04-cv-00759-DDD-JDK Document 50 Filed 12/01/2004 Page 10 of 11
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of exhaustion and failure to state a claim cognizable under Section 1983.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Alexander W. Ndaula's complaint be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and failure to state a claim cognizable under Section 1983.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the action against the "Concordia Parish Sheriff's Department" be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS ALSO RECOMMENDED that plaintiffs' motion for class certification be DENIED AS MOOT.
Under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b) (1) (e) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the parties have ten (10) business days from service of this Report and Recommendation to file specific, written objections with the Clerk of Court. A party may respond to another party's objections within ten (10) days after being served with a copy thereof. A courtesy copy of any objection or response or request for extension of time shall be furnished to the District Judge at the time of filing. Timely objections will be considered by the district judge before he makes a final ruling.
A PARTY'S FAILURE TO FILE WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT WITHIN TEN (10) BUSINESS DAYS FROM THE DATE OF ITS SERVICE SHALL
10

Case 1:04-cv-00759-DDD-JDK Document 50 Filed 12/01/2004 Page 11 of 11 BAR AN AGGRIEVED PARTY, EXCEPT ON GROUNDS OF PLAIN ERROR, FROM ATTACKING ON APPEAL THE UNOBJECTED-TO PROPOSED FACTUAL FINDINGS AND LEGAL CONCLUSIONS ACCEPTED BY THE DISTRICT JUDGE.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED at Alexandria, Louisiana, on this day of November, 2004.
STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
11

 
 Case 1:04-cv-00759-DDD-JDK Document 97-1 Filed 09/30/2005 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

ALEXANDRIA DIVISION __________________________________________________

PATRICK BROWN, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-0759-A

-vs-

JUDGE DRELL

TOM RIDGE, ET AL.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE KIRK

JUDGMENT
Before the Court are two Reports and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge (Document Nos. 50 and 75) and multiple motions (Document Nos. 3, 73, 78, 82, 83, 88, and 92). After reviewing the entire file in this matter, including the written objections, and concurring in part with the Magistrate Judge’s findings under the applicable law, this Court adopts the Reports and Recommendations subject to the modifications outlined below.
For the reasons set forth herein, the claims of Fredo Gustave, Eric Bell, Ramit Narang, Leroy Bacchus, and Hussein Nasrallah are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to notify the Court of a change of address; all claims against the “Concordia Parish Sheriff’s Department” are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; the Motion for Class Certification (Document No. 3) is DENIED; and Patrick L. Brown’s Motion to Dismiss (Document No. 73) is DENIED AS MOOT.

Case 1:04-cv-00759-DDD-JDK Document 97-1 Filed 09/30/2005 Page 2 of 5
Additionally, Patrick L. Brown’s Motion to Reinstate Case (Document No. 78) is DENIED AS MOOT; Plaintiffs’ Motion for Extension of Time to Amend Complaint (Document No. 82) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, and the remaining plaintiffs are given until November 15, 2005 to file any proposed amendment; Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (Document No. 83) is DENIED; Plaintiffs’ Motion for Extension of Time to Object to the Report and Recommendation (Document No. 88) is DENIED AS MOOT; and Patrick L. Brown’s Motion to Withdraw Motion to Dismiss (Document No. 92) is GRANTED. The Change of Address Issue
Uniform District Court Rule 41.3W provides, in pertinent part: The failure of an attorney or pro se litigant to keep the court apprised of an address change may be considered cause for dismissal for failure to prosecute when a notice is returned to the court for the reason of an incorrect address and no correction is made to the address for a period of 30 days. A review of the record shows the following Plaintiffs have failed to notify the Court of any change of address and have had numerous documents returned that were sent to their last known address: Fredo Gustave; Eric Bell; Ramit Narang; Leroy Bacchus; and Hussein Nasrallah. Therefore, the claims of those Plaintiffs are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Claims Against the Concordia Parish Sheriff’s Department “It is well settled that the law of Louisiana affords no legal status to the ‘Parish Sheriff’s Department’ so that the department can sue or be sued; such
2

Case 1:04-cv-00759-DDD-JDK Document 97-1 Filed 09/30/2005 Page 3 of 5
status is reserved to the Sheriff.” Ashy v. Migues, 99-1502 (La. App. 3d Cir. 04/05/00), writ den., 2000-1937 (La. 10/6/00), 771 So.2d 85.
Therefore, any and all claims against the Concordia Parish Sheriff’s Department are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Motions for Class Certification
The record contains two pending motions to certify this case as a class action. (Document Nos. 3 and 83.) Although the Magistrate Judge recommended denial of the first motion as moot, his Report and Recommendation also addressed the substantive reasons to deny class certification. (Document No. 50, p. 8, n. 3.) The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis on this point under the applicable law and adopts the above-referenced discussion as if repeated in full.
Accordingly, both motions for class certification (Document Nos. 3 and 83) are DENIED. Patrick L. Brown’s Motions to Dismiss, Reinstate Case, and Withdraw Motion to Dismiss
After the Magistrate Judge recommended Patrick L. Brown be allowed to dismiss his claims voluntarily, Plaintiff apparently had a change of heart. Mr. Brown asked both for reinstatement of his case and for a withdrawal of his previously-filed Motion to Dismiss. (Document Nos. 73, 78, and 92.) Under the unique circumstances presented in this case, the Court will allow Mr. Brown’s litigation to proceed.
3

Case 1:04-cv-00759-DDD-JDK Document 97-1 Filed 09/30/2005 Page 4 of 5
Therefore, Mr. Brown’s Motion to Withdraw Motion to Dismiss (Document No. 92) is GRANTED, his Motion to Dismiss (Document No. 73) is DENIED AS MOOT, and his Motion to Reinstate Case (Document No. 78) is DENIED AS MOOT. Extensions of Time
In the interest of justice, the Motion for Extension of Time to Amend Complaint (Document No. 82) is GRANTED as to the remaining Plaintiffs, Patrick L. Brown, Franklin Moreno, Rafiu Abimbola, Prince C. Brown, Augusto Moreira, Alexander W. Ndaula, and Curtis Banks, and is DENIED AS MOOT as to the dismissed Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are given through November 15, 2005 to file the proposed amendment.
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Extension of Time to Object to Report and Recommendation (Document No. 88) is DENIED AS MOOT.
CONCLUSION Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the claims of Fredo Gustave, Eric Bell, Ramit Narang, Leroy Bacchus, and Hussein Nasrallah are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to notify the Court of a change of address; all claims against the “Concordia Parish Sheriff’s Department” are DISMISSEDWITH PREJUDICE; the Motion for Class Certification (Document No. 3) is DENIED; and Patrick L. Brown’s Motion to Dismiss (Document No. 73) is DENIED AS MOOT.
4

Case 1:04-cv-00759-DDD-JDK Document 97-1 Filed 09/30/2005 Page 5 of 5
Additionally, Patrick L. Brown’s Motion to Reinstate Case (Document No. 78) is DENIED AS MOOT; Plaintiffs’ Motion for Extension of Time to Amend Complaint (Document No. 82) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, and the remaining Plaintiffs are given until November 15, 2005 to file any proposed amendment; Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (Document No. 83) is DENIED; Plaintiffs’ Motion for Extension of Time to Object to the Report and Recommendation (Document No. 88) is DENIED AS MOOT; and Patrick L. Brown’s Motion to Withdraw Motion to Dismiss (Document No. 92) is GRANTED.
SIGNED on this 30th day of September, 2005, at Alexandria, Louisiana.
5

 
 Brown v. Ridge, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)

2006 WL 1581167 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana.
Patrick BROWN, et al. v.
Tom RIDGE, et al.
No. Civ.A. 04-0759-A. | Jan. 19, 2006.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Patrick Brown, Oakdale, LA, pro se.
Franklin Moreno, Gadsden, AL, pro se.
Rafiu Abimbola, Gadsden, AL, pro se.
Prince C. Brown, Oakdale, LA, pro se.
Augusto Moreira, Lake Charles, LA, pro se.
Alexander W. Ndaula, Soros Justice Fellow/National Immigration Project, Boston, MA, pro se.
Curtis Banks, Gadsden, AL, pro se.
Opinion

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

KIRK, Magistrate J.
*1 Before the court is a civil rights complaint1 filed in forma pauperis by or on behalf of the following plaintiffs: (1) Patrick L. Brown, (2) Fredo Gustave, (3) Ismael (or Ismet) Karaca, (4) Eric Bell, (5) Ramit Narang, (6) Franklin Moreno, (7) Leroy Bacchus, (8) Rafiu Abimbola, (9) Prince C. Brown, (10) Gervase Blackwood, (11) Hussein Nasrallah, (12) Augusto Moreira, (13) Alexander W. Ndaula, and (14) Curtis Banks.

1

Plaintiffs named federal agents as defendants (then

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary

Tom Ridge, the DHS/Immigration and Customs

Enforcement (ICE) District Director, Christine Davis,

and Nancy L. Hooks, the Officer in Charge,

DHS-Oakdale); consequently, this action, as it relates

to these federal defendants is construed to be a civil

rights claim filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown

Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S.

388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971).

Plaintiffs also named the Concordia Parish Sheriff’s

Office, the Concordia Parish Correctional Facility (CPCF), its Warden, and Chief of Security. Since these defendants are named as “state actors,” plaintiffs’ civil rights claims against these defendants arise under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Further, by order dated September 30, 2005, the claims against the Concordia Parish Sheriff’s Department were dismissed with prejudice. [Doc. 97-1]

The original complaint appears to have been signed by all plaintiffs on February 14, 2004 and received and filed on March 29, 2004.2

2

As is shown hereinafter, plaintiff Gervase Blackwood

filed a Motion to Withdraw alleging that “... his

co-detainees without his knowledge had added his

name into this class action suit.” [Doc. 36] His Motion

to Withdraw was granted on May 28, 2004. [Doc. 37]

Further, plaintiff Ismet or Ismael Karaca filed a Motion

to dismiss suggesting that he, too, had not consented to

be a plaintiff in this action. This motion was granted on

May 13, 2004. [See Docs. 29, 33]

At the time the complaint was filed, all plaintiffs were immigration detainees in the custody of the Department of Homeland Security/Immigration and Customs Enforcement (DHS/ICE); all were detained at the Concordia Parish Correctional Facility, Phase II (CPCF-II). All claims for relief related to their confinement at CPCF-II. However, in an objection to a previous Report and Recommendation, plaintiff Alexander Ndaula broadened the scope of his complaint alleging, “... there’s a continuing injury and live controversy where BICE officials continue the mistreatment in other detention centers and a grant of relief against ICE officials would cure the mistreatment and constitutional violations stated.” [Doc. 48, p. 5]

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
1. The Original Complaint and Attachments [Doc. 1]
In the original complaint, plaintiffs made the following claims for relief:
Plaintiffs claimed to have been housed at CPCF-II under “sub human” conditions and in violation of DHS/ICE standards. The DHS/ICE Standards alleged to have been violated were articulated as follows: Plaintiffs were being housed with state inmates who were “awaiting to serve long criminal sentences.” Plaintiffs were denied their
1

Brown v. Ridge, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)

one-hour per day access to a law library, access to sufficient typewriters and computers, access to sufficient and updated legal materials, and, plaintiffs were required to submit their legal materials to an inmate counsel in violation of the “Privacy Act.” Further, plaintiffs complained that they were not provided clean, unstained sheets. [Doc. 1, paragraph IV]
In an attachment to the complaint,3 plaintiffs alleged the following:

3

The attachment is signed only by plaintiff Patrick L.

Brown. [Doc.1, attachment, p. 9]

A. Access to the Courts/Law Library [Doc. 1, attachment, p. 1]
Plaintiffs reiterated their access to the courts claim and asserted that the CPCF-II Law Library was inadequate; that they were denied access to the library; that they were denied paper and pen to draft legal documents; and, that consequently, the defendants had violated their rights of access to the courts in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
B. Denial of the Right to Religious Freedom [Id., p. 2]
Plaintiffs claimed that CPCF-II authorities denied non-Christian inmates rights to freely exercise their religion. Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that detainees Eric Bell and Patrick Brown had been placed in Administrative Segregation because they refused to cut their hair. (Bell and Brown contend that as members of the Rastafarian religion, they abide by a “no hair cut policy.”)
*2 Plaintiffs also contended that detainee Nico Benn was kept in Administrative Segregation because he refused to shave his beard. (Benn is alleged to be a Sunni Muslim; his religious beliefs prohibit him from cutting his beard. Benn, of course, did not sign the pleading and is not a party to this lawsuit.)
Plaintiffs claimed that the defendants “fail to permit Muslim inmates to congregate on Fridays for ‘Jumah Prayer’ Service.”
C. Denial of First Amendment Right to the Press [Id. at p. 3]

Plaintiffs claimed that the defendants have circulated a memorandum which purports to ban “all publications from the holding center.”
D. Conditions of Confinement [Id. at p. 5]
Plaintiffs claimed that CPCF-II had no “sheet exchange program” and that inmate laundry was not properly laundered Consequently, the sheets and towels provided to inmates were alleged to be discolored.
Plaintiffs also claimed that their living quarters were unsanitary; that they were not allowed sufficient recreation; that they were exposed to environmental tobacco smoke; that they were provided only three toilets and one shower for sixty inmates; and, that CPCF-II offered no “extra-curricular activities.”
E. Retaliation for Exercise of Rights to Judicial Review [Id., p. 6]
Plaintiffs claimed that the “majority of the INS detainees ... are currently in the middle of the Judicial Reviews of ... final orders of deportation.” They claimed that they were transferred from Federal Detention Centers, where they had access to adequate law libraries and legal materials, to CPCF-II as retaliation for asserting their rights in immigration proceedings.
Plaintiffs claimed that inmate Abimbola, who served as inmate counsel for the immigration detainees was relieved of his job as retaliation for his complaints concerning the inadequacies of the law library.
F. Physical and Verbal Assault on Detainees [Id. p. 7]
Plaintiffs claimed that detainee Norman Butte (who is not a plaintiff in this action) was physically assaulted by an unnamed corrections officer, and that detainee Gregario Machvado (who is also not a plaintiff in this action) was badly beaten by state inmates.
Plaintiffs claimed that Gervaise Blackwood (a named plaintiff who subsequently withdrew from the litigation) was verbally abused when he requested a vegetarian diet in accordance with this religious beliefs; Blackwood was also denied a meal.
Plaintiffs claimed that Hussein Nasrallah (a named plaintiff) was refused a copy of the Koran by the prison
2

Brown v. Ridge, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)
chaplain. The chaplain also disparaged Nasralla’s religion and beliefs.
G. Plaintiffs’ Prayer for Relief [Doc. 1, paragraph V and Attachment, p. 8]
In the original complaint, plaintiffs prayed for an order compelling the defendants to meet detention standards and to provide all basic needs, or, in the alternative, for an order compelling defendants to house all detainees at a “qualified detention center.”
In the attachment to the complaint, plaintiffs prayed for an injunction compelling the defendants to either comply with the standards listed in the INS Detention Standard Manual or transfer of the plaintiffs to a federal or local facility that meets those standards.
*3 Plaintiffs also prayed for “nominal punitive damages of $5.00 to each plaintiff.” Finally, plaintiffs prayed for an order directing the defendants to release Patrick Brown, Eric Bell and Nico Benn from Administrative Segregation.
2. Motion for Class Certification [Doc. 3]
On March 29, 2004, plaintiff Patrick Brown filed a Motion for Class Certification. Therein plaintiff sought certification of a class of persons similarly situated who, “either now, or in the future will be, incarcerated in Concordia Parish Correctional Facility ...” Plaintiff estimated that the class would number approximately two hundred and that the questions of law and fact presented would be common to the entire class. Brown alleged that the plaintiff class would consist of “detained aliens in the United States” who “are incarcerated at the Concordia Parish Correctional Facility ...” Brown also sought to join as a defendant, Craig Robinson, the “duly appointed and acting New Orleans Field Office Director for Detention and Removal ...”
Brown contended that the defendants (those named in the original complaint and Robinson) “have promulgated through their contracted agent, the Concordia Parish Correctional Facility Warden’s Office, certain Rules and Regulations relating to the access of prisoners to law books, confinement conditions and communication and/or access to the courts.”
Finally, Brown prayed for injunctive relief, costs, and attorney’s fees.

3. The Current Status of the Plaintiffs
The following plaintiffs have notified the court that they are either no longer detained at CPCF-II, or wish to withdraw from this litigation:

a. On April 26, 2004, Patrick Brown advised that he was being detained at the Etowah County Detention Center, Gadsden, Alabama. [Doc. 19] By January 26, 2005, Brown had been transferred to the Federal Detention Center, Oakdale, (FDCO) Louisiana. [Doc. 73] It appears that he remains detained at that facility as of the date of this writing.

b. On April 21, 2004, Eric Bell advised that he was being detained at the Etowah County Detention Center (ECDC), Gadsden, Alabama. [Doc. 20]
c. On the same date, Hussein Nasrallah submitted his in forma pauperis application, therein indicating that he is now detained at the ECDC, Gadsden, Alabama. [Doc. 17]

d. On April 29, 2004, Rafiu Abimbola advised that he was being detained at the ECDC, Gadsden, Alabama. [Doc. 23] The available evidence suggests that he is still being detained there.

e. On April 29, 2004, Alexander W. Ndaula submitted his in forma pauperis application, therein indicating that he was being detained at the ECDC, Gadsden, Alabama. [Doc. 25] On September 15, 2004 he submitted a pleading and correspondence providing the following address, 454 Pleasant Street, No. 3, Worcester, Massachusetts. [Doc. 44] On January 3, 2005, he advised the court that the Worcester, Massachusetts address was still valid, however, his correspondence reflected the following return address, “Alexander (Malik) Ndaula/National Immigration Project/National Lawyers Guild, Inc./14 Beacon St., Suite 602, Boston, Mass. 01208.” [Doc. 66] Ndaula is no longer in the physical custody of DHS/ICE.4

4

See “Holding the Immigration System Accountable,” at

http:// www.nationalimmigra tionproject.org/

Press/SystemÄccountable.htm, “The small town of

Oakdale Louisiana, where Ndaula was held for 3 years

(finally securing his release in May 2004)....”

*4 f. On April 29, 2004, Augusto Moreira advised that he was being detained at the ECDC, Gadsden, Alabama. [Doc. 26] It appears that he remains in custody at that facility.
g. On April 30, 2004, Prince C. Brown provided evidence that he is now detained at the FDCO, Oakdale, Louisiana.
3

Brown v. Ridge, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)
[Doc. 28; 34] It appears that he remains in custody at that institution.
h. On May 5, 2004, plaintiff Ismael Karaca filed a Motion which indicated that he was not a party to this litigation. [Doc. 29] On May 13, 2004, his Motion to Dismiss was granted and he was dismissed from the complaint. [Doc. 33]
i. On May 25, 2004, Gervase Blackwood filed a Motion to Withdraw alleging that “... his co-detainees without his knowledge had added his name into this class action suit.” [Doc. 36] His Motion to Withdraw was granted on May 28, 2004. [Doc. 37]
j. On May 24, 2004, Leroy Bacchus submitted his in forma pauperis application, therein indicating that he is now detained at the ECDC, Gadsden, Alabama. [Doc. 38]
k. On May 20 and 21, 2004, court documents sent to Ramit Narang, Curtis Banks, Franklin Moreno, and Fredo Gustavo at CPCF-II were returned with the notation that these detainees were no longer incarcerated at the facility. [See docket sheet, following Doc. 35]
Subsequently, it was discovered that Curtis Banks and Franklin Moreno were being detained at the ECDC, Gadsden, Alabama.
By judgment dated May 13, 2004, plaintiff Ismael (Ismet) Xaraca’s complaint was voluntarily dismissed. [Doc. 33] On May 28, 2004, plaintiff Gervase Blackwood’s complaint was voluntarily dimissed. [Doc. 37]
Finally, on September 30, 2005, plaintiffs Fredo Gustave, Eric Bell, Ramit Narang, Leroy Bacchus, and Hussein Nasrallah were dismissed without prejudice for failing to keep the court apprised of their whereabouts. [Doc. 97-1]
Therefore, only the claims of the following plaintiffs remain viable:
1. Patrick L. Brown (FDCO, Oakdale, Louisiana);
2. Franklin Moreno (ECDC, Gadsden, Alabama);
3. Rafiu Abimbola (ECDC, Gadsden, Alabama);
4. Prince Brown (FDC, Oakdale, Oakdale, Louisiana);
5. Augusto Moreira, (ECDC, Gadsden, Alabama);
6. Alexander W. Ndaula, (who is not in custody and resides in Boston and/or Worcester, Mass.);
7. Curtis Banks, (ECDC, Gadsden, Alabama).
As can be seen, none of the plaintiffs are currently

detained at the CPCF-II.
PROCEDURAL CHRONOLOGY
A. First Report and Recommendation [Doc. 41]
In the original Report and Recommendation dated July 26, 2004 [Doc. 41], the undersigned recommended dismissal of the complaint and in so doing made the following observations:
1. Mootness
Since none of the remaining plaintiffs remained in detention at the CPCF-II as of July, 2004, the undersigned recommended dismissal of their claims for declaratory and injunctive relief as moot and cited Herman v. Holiday, 238 F.3d 660, 665 (5th Cir.2001) and Beck v. Lynaugh, 842 F.2d 759, 762 (5th Cir.1988) as support for the recommendation.
*5 Further, the undersigned noted: “The transfer of a prisoner out of an institution often will render his claims for injunctive relief moot” unless he “can show either a ‘demonstrated probability’ or a ‘reasonable expectation’ that he will be transferred back to the facility.” Oliver v. Scott, 276 F.3d 736, 741 (5th Cir.2002) (quoting Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 482, 102 S.Ct. 1181, 71 L.Ed.2d 353 (1982)). The undersigned also cited Edwards v. Johnson, 209 F.3d 772, 776 (5th Cir.2000) for the proposition that an alien detainee’s claims for injunctive relief intended to correct policies and practices at particular detention center were rendered moot when he was transferred out of that center.
2. Access to the Courts/Law Library
With regard to the access to courts claim, the undersigned, citing Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 2178, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996), recommended dismissal of the claims because plaintiffs had failed to show that the actions of the defendants resulted in an actual injury, that is “actual prejudice with respect to contemplated or existing litigation, such as the inability to meet a filing deadline or to present a claim.” Further, the undersigned, again citing Lewis v. Casey, opined that in order to prevail on their access to courts claim, the plaintiffs must identify a “nonfrivolous,” “arguable” underlying claim which has
4

Brown v. Ridge, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)
been “frustrated or was being impeded.”. Id. at 353.
3. Denial of the Right to Religious Freedom
Citing Diaz v. Collins, 114 F.3d 69, 72-73 (5th Cir.1997); Harris v. Chapman, 97 F.3d 499 (11th Cir.1996); Hamilton v. Schriro, 74 F.3d 1545 (8th Cir.1996); and O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 351-352, 107 S.Ct. 2400, 96 L.Ed.2d 282 (1987), the undersigned recommended dismissal of plaintiffs’ free exercise of religion claims.
4. Denial of First Amendment Right to the Press
In recommending denial of plaintiffs’ First Amendment, free press/speech claim the undersigned recommended dismissal because the plaintiffs failed to allege that any particular publications were censored and instead, merely referred to a memorandum suggesting that publications would be banned. The undersigned further noted that to the extent that the “memo” in question had been implemented, plaintiffs arguably stated a claim for which relief may be granted; however, plaintiffs did not amend their pleadings to provide those factual allegations necessary to support this claim. As noted, since constitutional violations do not exist in a vacuum, civil rights plaintiffs must always allege, in addition to the fault of the defendant, some prejudice suffered as a result of that fault. Since none of the plaintiffs alleged the unwarranted censorship of a particular publication, it was recommended that this claim be dismissed.
5. Conditions of Confinement
The undersigned recommended dismissal of plaintiffs’ complaint about unsanitary or unhealthy conditions of confinement and noted, the appropriate standards for judging conditions of confinement cases raised by detainees. The undersigned further noted that when an individual government official is sued for a specific act or omission, the detainee-plaintiff must allege and establish that the named defendant acted with subjective deliberate indifference to prove a violation of his constitutional rights. Finally, noting that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits detainees from being held under inhumane conditions, and mindful of the appropriate jurisprudence, the undersigned concluded that plaintiffs’ allegations did not suggest that these plaintiffs were forced to endure such inhumane conditions.

6. Retaliation
*6 Plaintiffs’ contention that their transfer to CPCF-II was an act of retaliation by DHS/ICE officials was also determined to be without any basis in fact or law. The undersigned noted, “To state a valid claim for retaliation under section 1983, a prisoner must allege (1) a specific constitutional right, (2) the defendant’s intent to retaliate against the prisoner for his or her exercise of that right, (3) a retaliatory adverse act, and (4) causation.” Jones v. Greninger, 188 F.3d at 324-25. “[I]f the [prisoner] is unable to point to a specific constitutional right that has been violated, the claim will fail.” Id. at 325. “The [prisoner] must allege more than his personal belief that he is the victim of retaliation,” id.; rather, he “must produce direct evidence of motivation or, the more probable scenario, ‘allege a chronology of events from which retaliation may plausibly be inferred[,]” ’ Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 1166 (5th Cir.1995) (quoting Cain v. Lane, 857 F.2d 1139, 1143 n. 6 (7th Cir.1988)). Finally, “causation” requires the prisoner to show that “but for the retaliatory motive the complained of incident ... would not have occurred.” Johnson v. Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 299, 310 (5th Cir.1997). “This places a significant burden on the [prisoner].” Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d at 1166.
Dismissal of the retaliation claims was recommended because the plaintiffs offered only their conclusory opinions that the defendants had a retaliatory motive.
7. Physical and Verbal Abuse
The undersigned recommended dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims of physical and verbal abuse with respect to their fellow detainees, Norman Butte and Gregario Machvado because neither detainee were parties to the suit.
8. Class Action Certification
Finally, the undersigned recommended that the Motion for Class Action Certification be denied for a variety of reasons. This recommendation was ultimately accepted by the Court.
B. Plaintiffs’ (Abimbola and Ndaula) Objections to the First Report and Recommendation [Docs. 42, 43, 44,
45, and 48]
5

Brown v. Ridge, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)
On August 9, 2004, plaintiff Rafiu Abimbola filed a Motion seeking an extension of time to file objections to the Report and Recommendation. [Doc. 42] On August 12, 2004, plaintiff’s motion was granted and he was told to file his objections by September 12, 2004. [Doc. 43] However, plaintiff Abimbola did not file an objection.
On September 15, 2004, plaintiff Alexander W. Ndaula filed a motion seeking additional time to file his objections to the Report and Recommendation. [Doc. 44] On September 21, 2004, Ndaula’s motion was granted and he was given until October 23, 2004 to file objections. [Doc. 45] A second request resulted in an extension until November 23, 2004. [Docs. 46-47]
On October 22, 2004 plaintiff Ndaula filed an opposition to the Report and Recommendation. [Doc. 48] The objections were set forth under seven headings, summarized as follows:
*7 I. Discussion-Ndaula argued, “Plaintiffs’ claims principally seek damages for violations of their First and Fifth Amendment Rights.”
II. Analysis-Citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972), at p. 521, Ndaula argued that the plaintiffs’ claims should not be dismissed on initial review without first affording them the opportunity to present evidence in support of their claims, or, at the least, an opportunity to amend the complaint to cure the deficiencies noted in the Report and Recommendation. Additionally, Ndaula observed, “... this suit does not target CPCF as the exclusive defendant, rather it entails general detention practices of the DHS.”
III. Mootness-Ndaula objected to the Report insofar as it recommended dismissal of the claims as moot because none of the plaintiffs were being detained at CPCF. Ndaula argued that identical or at least similar conditions of confinement were encountered by all of the plaintiffs who were transferred to the ECDC in Alabama and that the DHS/ICE officials named as defendants were responsible for this general policy of transferring immigration detainees to sub-standard facilities. Ndaula also argued in favor of class certification as to this issue. Ndaula further observed, “The mere fact that this complaint was filed at the CPCF facility, does not on its own imply in any sense that this action seeks only relief against CPCF officials ... The complaint is a direct attack on detention practices the agency enforces countrywide with specificity to facilities in the south.”
IV. Right of Access to the Courts and Right of Counsel-Ndaula argued that “... Defendants undertook a wide variety of measures to deny Plaintiffs access to counsel and the courts, from an initial communications blackout, to highly restrictive limits on phone calls and visits with attorneys thereafter, to falsely denying that

individuals were in Defendants’ custody at all, to denying bond without supporting evidence and seeking continuances to delay review of detention where no DHS officials went so far as to deceive detainees into forgoing calls to attorneys ...”
He concluded by arguing that there was no need to show actual injury in order to prevail on an access to court claim.
V. Conditions of Confinement-Ndaula argued that the cases cited in the Report and Recommendation “concerned facilities that markedly facilitate a different class of prisoners to the alien detainees seeking class certification here. The CPCF-II and other contract facilities ... involve traditional jails and cells in which ‘inmates’ and detainees were locked during most of the day. Given this factual disparity, they have little or no application to the case at hand ... The analysis fails to scrutinize the particulars of the facilities as related to the designs and concept in question, and does not explain how and why it would be of no consequence to discuss them ...”
Ndaula also argued that the plaintiffs should be allowed to amend their complaint to request more than nominal damages for the harm suffered as a result of their exposure to the conditions of confinement complained of at CPCF-II.
*8 VI. Free Exercise of Religion-Ndaula claimed that the grooming policies complained of at CMDC-II were unconstitutional as applied to immigration detainees because they present less of a security threat than do convicts. Further he noted, “The key to the issues in this complaint is to bring some legal light to the practices fostered by ICE officials in the many contract detention facilities housing ICE prisoners.” Ndaula also argued that the Report’s analysis of the Jumuah Prayer Service issue was without merit since the facility in question did provide such accommodations to its Christian detainees and prisoners.
VII. Retaliation and Intimidation-Ndaula argued that the Report and Recommendation was in error insofar as it concluded that plaintiffs had failed to articulate a chronology of events from which retaliation could be inferred.
C. Judge Drell’s Order [Doc. 49]
On November 9, 2004, Judge Drell signed an order which stated, “This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge James D. Kirk for further analysis in light of Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s
6

Brown v. Ridge, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)
Report and Recommendation to Dismiss (Document No. 48).”
D. Second Report and Recommendation [Doc. 50]
On December 1, 2004, the undersigned authored another Report and Recommendation which:
1. Recommended dismissal of the claims of plaintiffs Fredo Gustave, Ramit Narang, Franklin Moreno, and Curtis Banks because of their failure to submit either a filing fee or an IFP Application [Doc. 50, p. 2];
2. Recommended dismissal of the claims of plaintiffs Eric Bell, Fredo Gustave, Ramit Narang, Franklin Moreno, Hussein Nasrallah, Patrick L. Brown, Curtis Banks, Augusto Moreira, Leroy Bacchus, and Hussein Nasrallah for their violation of Local Rule 41.3-W in that they had not apprised the court of their whereabouts following transfer from CPCF-II [id., pp. 2-3];
3. Recommended dismissal of the claims of plaintiff Rafiu Abimbola due to his failure to file an objection to the First Report and Recommendation [id., p. 3]; and,
4. Recommended dismissal of all plaintiffs’ claims due to their failure to exhaust available administrative remedies [id.]; and,
5. Noted that only plaintiff Ndaula had objected to the First Report and Recommendation and that although he purported to be a representative of all of the plaintiffs, he could not appear in that capacity since he is not an attorney [id., p. 5-6]; and,
6. Recommended dismissal of Ndaula’s claims because “none of the claims [alleged in the pleadings] cite[d] specific instances of violations of Ndaula’s constitutional rights by the named defendants, or actual injuries suffered by Ndaula ...”; [id., pp. 7-8] and,
7. Recommended dismissal of the Concordia Parish Sheriff’s Office as a defendant since the Sheriff’s Department is not a “person” capable of being sued under Louisiana law. [id., pp. 8-9]
E. Plaintiffs’ Objections and Motions and Orders and Judgments [Docs. 51, 59, 66, 69, 70, 71, 73, 75, 76, 77,
78, 82, 84, 88, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96]
*9 On December 20, 2004, plaintiff Rafiu Abimbola filed a Motion for an Extension of Time to file an objection to

the Report and Recommendation. [Doc. 51] His motion was granted on December 22, 2004, and he was ordered to file his objections before January, 11, 2005. [Doc. 59] On January 10, Abimbola filed another request for an extension [Doc. 69] and he was given until February 10, 2005 to file his objections. [Doc. 71]
On January 3, 2005, plaintiff Alexander Ndaula also filed a Motion for an Extension of Time to file an objection. [Doc. 66] On January 13, 2005, this motion was granted and he was ordered to file his objections by February 7, 2005. [Doc. 70]
On January 26, 2005, plaintiff Patrick L. Brown filed a Motion to Dismiss his complaint. [Doc. 73] On February 2, 2005, the undersigned authored a Report recommending that Brown’s request for voluntary dismissal be granted. [Doc. 75] On February 9, 2005, Brown objected to the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 77] and on the same date he filed a Motion to Reinstate his complaint. [Doc. 78]
On February 1, 2005, plaintiffs Augusto Moreira and Rafiu Abimbola filed a Notice to Join in the Objections to be filed by plaintiff Ndaula. [Doc. 76]
On February 10, 2005 plaintiff Ndaula filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Amend and Supplement his Complaint [Doc. 82], a Motion to Certify Class Action [Doc. 83], and an Objection to the Second Report and Recommendation [Doc. 84]. In the objection, plaintiffs Ndaula, Moreira and Abimbola (see Doc. 76) made the following observations with regard to the Second Report and Recommendation [Doc. 50]:
1. To the extent that the Report recommended dismissal based upon the plaintiffs’ failure to exhaust administrative remedies as mandated by the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), it was in error since the provisions of that statute and other provisions of the PLRA (Prison Litigation Reform Act) have been held not to apply to immigration detainees, since these detainees do not fall within the ambit of the statute’s definition of “prisoner.” [Doc. 84, pp. 5-7], and,
2. To the extent that exhaustion is mandated, it should be excused in plaintiffs’ case because an effective administrative remedies procedure has not been afforded to immigration detainees in the custody of local prisons or detention centers; and, plaintiffs were hindered by the defendants from utilizing any administrative remedies procedure that may have been in place. [id., pp. 7-16]
Further, plaintiffs Ndaula, Moreira and Abimbola re-urged their objection to the Report’s finding that plaintiffs failed to allege an actual injury and objected to the Report’s conclusion that Ndaula could not represent the remaining co-plaintiffs. [id. pp. 16-19]
7

Brown v. Ridge, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)
On February 11, 2005, plaintiffs Curtis Banks, Franklin Moreno, and Rafiu Abimbola filed a Motion for an Extension of Time to Object [Doc. 88] to the Report which recommended voluntary dismissal of Patrick Brown’s claims. [Doc. 75] On March 3, 2005, plaintiff Ndaula likewise objected to the voluntary dismissal of Brown’s claims. [Doc. 93] On March 16, 2005, plaintiffs Moreno, Moreira, and Abimbola joined in Ndaula’s objection to Brown’s voluntary dismissal. [Docs. 94, 95, 96]
*10 On February 17, 2005, Brown filed a Motion to Withdraw his Motion to Dismiss. [Doc. 92]
F. Judge Drell’s September 30, 2005 Judgment [Doc. 97]
Finally, on September 30, 2005, Judge Drell signed a judgment which:
1. Dismissed without prejudice the claims of plaintiffs Fredo Gustave, Eric Bell, Ramit Narang, Leroy Bacchus, and Hussein Nasrallah because these plaintiffs failed to notify the court of their respective address changes;
2. Dismissed with prejudice all claims against the Concordia Parish Sheriff’s Department;
3. Denied the Motions for Class Certification [Docs. 3 and 83];
4. Granted plaintiff Patrick Brown’s Motion to Withdraw his motion to voluntarily dismiss his claim [Doc. 92] and made appropriate rulings with respect to the remainder of Brown’s Motions [Docs. 78, 88, and 92]; and,
5. Granted the Motion for Extension of Time to file any proposed Amendment to the pleadings and gave all remaining plaintiffs [Patrick Brown, Franklin Moreno, Rafiu Abimbola, Prince C. Brown, Augusto Moreira, Alexander W. Ndaula, and Curtis Banks] until November 15, 2005 to file their proposed amendments.
G. Post Judgment Events
Judge Drell’s Judgment was mailed to all plaintiffs.
On October 11, 2005, the judgment sent to plaintiff Prince Brown at the FDCO was returned with the notation “return to sender.” [Doc. 98]

None of the remaining plaintiffs have filed an Amendment to the Complaint.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
The Report and Recommendation dated July 26, 2004 [Doc. 41] was initially rejected by the court [Doc. 49] based upon plaintiff Ndaula’s objections filed on October 22, 2004. [Doc. 48] Ndaula and the other remaining plaintiffs have been given the opportunity to amend their complaints to cure some of the deficiencies noted in the first Report and Recommendation, however, none of the plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint.
The original Report and Recommendation was withdrawn on December 1, 2004 when the second Report and Recommendation was submitted. [Doc. 50] In light of developments subsequent to December 1, 2004, the undersigned hereby re-instates the first Report and Recommendation with the following additional observations.
1. Mootness
None of the remaining plaintiffs are in detention at the CPCF-II. As noted in the original Report and Recommendation [Doc. 41], their transfers render the claims for declaratory and injunctive relief moot as to all claims and all defendants. See Herman v. Holiday, 238 F.3d 660, 665 (5th Cir.2001) (even if inmate was able to establish constitutional violation, his transfer to another prisoner rendered moot his claim for declaratory and injunctive relief) (citing Cooper v. Sheriff, Lubbock County, Tex., 929 F.2d 1078, 1084 (5th Cir.1991)); Beck v. Lynaugh, 842 F.2d 759, 762 (5th Cir.1988) (prisoners who were no longer in Retrieve Unit could not seek injunctive relief against conditions of confinement there).
Any suggestion of relief based on the possibility of a transfer back to CPCF-II is too speculative to warrant relief. See Herman, 238 F.3d at 665 (citing Bailey v. Southerland, 821 F.2d 277, 279 (5th Cir.1987)).
*11 In any event, as shown above, plaintiffs have requested prospective injunctive relief. See Castillo v. Cameron County, Tex. ., 238 F.3d 339, 351 n. 19 (5th Cir.2001) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3626(g)(7)) (“The PLRA defines ‘prospective relief’ as ‘all relief other than compensatory monetary damages.” ’ See also, Cook Industries, Inc. v. Carlson, 334 F.Supp. 809, 3 ERC 1799, 2 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,548, (N.D.Miss.1971), (“Nominal Damages are not actual or compensatory damages.”)
8

Brown v. Ridge, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)

“The transfer of a prisoner out of an institution often will render his claims for injunctive relief moot” unless he “can show either a ‘demonstrated probability’ or a ‘reasonable expectation’ that he will be transferred back to the facility.” Oliver v. Scott, 276 F.3d 736, 741 (5th Cir.2002) (quoting Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 482, 102 S.Ct. 1181, 71 L.Ed.2d 353 (1982)). See Wallace v. Texas Tech University, 80 F.3d 1042, 1047 n. 3 (5th Cir.1996) (“Jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s claims for future relief is appropriate only if a reasonable likelihood exists that the plaintiff will again be subjected to the allegedly unconstitutional actions.”). Finally, see Edwards v. Johnson, 209 F.3d 772, 776 (5th Cir.2000) (Alien detainee’s claims for injunctive relief intended to correct policies and practices at particular detention center were rendered moot when he was transferred out of that center.)
None of the remaining plaintiffs have suggested that there is a reasonable likelihood that they will be transferred back to CPCF-II.5 Therefore, plaintiffs’ request for prospective injunctive relief as to all of their claims should be dismissed as moot. Bilarski v. Harborth, 55 F.3d 160, 162 (5th Cir.1995).

5

Indeed, the record herein demonstrates that none of the

plaintiffs have been detained at CPCF-II since April or

May, 2004.

In addition, and with respect to the specific claims for relief raised herein by the plaintiffs, as the following discussion shows, plaintiffs have clearly failed to state claims for which relief may be granted.
Plaintiff Ndaula, in his objection to the Report and Recommendation filed on October 22, 2004 [Doc. 48] attempted to expand his complaint to include the “... general detention practices of the DHS.” He argued that dismissal of the complaint on the grounds of mootness was inappropriate because identical or similar conditions of confinement were encountered by detainees who had been transferred to the ECDC in Alabama or to other detention centers in the south.
However, as shown above, Ndaula is no longer in the physical custody of DHS/ICE and has not been in the custody of that agency since May, 2004. In fact, it appears that Ndaula was not in custody when he filed the Objection to the First Report and Recommendation. Thus, in light of the fact that he has not been in the physical custody of DHS/ICE, it is clear that plaintiff Ndaula’s claims are moot whether he complains about conditions of confinement at CPCF-II, ECDC, or any other “sub-standard” facility.

With respect to the claims of those plaintiffs who remain in DHS/ICE custody at ECDC-plaintiffs Morano, Abimbola, Brown, Moraira, and Banks-despite having been afforded numerous opportunities to do so, none of these plaintiffs have alleged any specific claims concerning the conditions of confinement at ECDC. Plaintiff Ndaula’s conclusory statements concerning the conditions of confinement at ECDC remain unsupported by his co-plaintiffs. These unsupported and conclusory allegations concerning the conditions of confinement at facilities other than CPCF-II fail to state a claim for which relief may be granted.
*12 Further, with respect to plaintiffs Patrick Brown and Prince Brown, the best evidence suggests that these detainees are now being, and have for some time been housed at the FDCO in Oakdale. Plaintiffs’ prayed initially for an order directing DHS/ICE to transfer them to a federal facility. It thus appears that with respect to the Plaintiffs Brown, their requests have been granted and their claims are clearly moot.
In short, the claims of all remaining defendants are moot and the dismissal of this complaint on that basis is recommended.
2. Access to the Courts/Law Library
Plaintiffs alleged that the CPCF-II Law Library is inadequate, that they are denied access to the library, and that they are denied typewriters, paper, and pens. Plaintiffs also complained that they were required to submit their legal papers to inmate counsel and that this practice impinged upon their right to privacy. Plaintiffs argued that as a result of these deficiencies, they were denied access to the courts in violation of their rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
As stated in the first Report and Recommendation, in Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 97 S.Ct. 1491, 52 L.Ed.2d 72 (1977), the United States Supreme Court held that “the fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts requires prison authorities to assist inmates in the preparation and filing of meaningful legal papers by providing prisoners with adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained in the law.” Id. at 828. However, this basic rule of constitutional law was subsequently qualified.
As further noted, in Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 2178, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996), the Court held that an inmate asserting an access to court claim must show that the actions of the defendants resulted in an actual injury, that is “actual prejudice with respect to contemplated or existing litigation, such as the inability to
9

Brown v. Ridge, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)
meet a filing deadline or to present a claim.”
The Court noted that Bounds “... did not create an abstract, freestanding right to a law library or legal assistance ...”, and that “... an inmate cannot establish relevant actual injury simply by establishing that his prison’s law library or legal assistance program is subpar in some theoretical sense ...”. Thus, according to the Court, and inmate alleging the denial of access to the courts based upon the inadequacies of the institution’s law library “... must go one step further and demonstrate that the alleged shortcomings in the library or legal assistance program hindered his efforts to pursue a legal claim.” Id. at 351.
Therefore, as previously noted, in the wake of Lewis v. Casey, plaintiffs asserting access to the courts claims must at least allege some general factual allegations of injury resulting from the conduct of the defendants. Id. at 358. Further, even in the context of a class action, the named plaintiffs who purport to represent the class must allege and show that they personally have been injured. Id. at 357 (citations omitted) Thus, in order to state a claim for relief, all plaintiffs must identify a “nonfrivolous,” “arguable” underlying claim which has been “frustrated or was being impeded.”. Id. at 353.
*13 In short, in order for their access to court claim to remain viable, each of the remaining plaintiffs must describe his underlying cause of action in the complaint with sufficient particularity to give fair notice to the defendant and to enable the court “... to apply the ‘nonfrivolous’ test and to show that the ‘arguable’ nature of the underlying claim is more than hope.” Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415-416, 122 S.Ct. 2179, 153 L.Ed.2d 413 (2002).
Here, plaintiffs have failed dismally. Plaintiffs have demonstrated no injury, either collectively or individually. Their claim merely asserts that immigration litigation is complex in nature and that the resources for doing research are inadequate. Plaintiffs fault the defendants because they “... have failed to put in place a system that updates vital legal research materials.” [Attachment, p. 1] However, “... the Constitution does not require that prisoners ... be able to conduct generalized research, but only that they be able to present their grievances to the courts ...” Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. at 360, 116 S.Ct. at 2184.
In his Objection, plaintiff Ndaula contended that the defendants had undertaken a wide variety of measures to deny the plaintiffs access to the courts. However, as shown above, Ndaula has been out of custody since May, 2004. Clearly the access to court claim is moot with respect to this plaintiff since he cannot show that action on the part of any of the defendants has caused him injury in this regards.

As to the remaining plaintiffs, Brown, Moreno, Abimbola, Prince Brown, Moreira, and Banks, none of them have suggested any specific acts on the part of the defendants which denied them access to the courts; and, more importantly, none of them have alleged the requisite injury which resulted from the alleged denial.
Notwithstanding plaintiff Ndaula’s averment to the contrary, a denial of access to the court claim must be supported by allegations showing a concrete injury resulting from the alleged violation. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996.)
Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for which relief may be granted, and, consequently, their access to court claims should be dismissed with prejudice.
3. Denial of the Right to Religious Freedom
Plaintiffs claim that Eric Bell and Patrick Brown were placed in Administrative Segregation when they refused to cut their hair. Bell and Brown are Rastafarians and claim that a hair cut would violate their religious tenets. Of course, Bell’s claim was dismissed on September 30, 2005; therefore any remaining claims asserted by or on behalf of plaintiff Bell are now moot.
With regard to Patrick Brown’s claim it should be noted that in those cases which have analyzed similar prison regulations, the courts have generally found that requiring prisoners to have short hair makes it more difficult for escaped prisoners to alter their appearance from the photographs taken periodically of all inmates. Based upon such findings, the courts generally have concluded that the institution’s interests in promulgating and enforcing grooming policies were compelling, and that these interests could not be achieved without some sort of regulation limiting hair length. See Diaz v. Collins, 114 F.3d 69, 72-73 (5th Cir.1997); Harris v. Chapman, 97 F.3d 499 (11th Cir.1996); Hamilton v. Schriro, 74 F.3d 1545 (8th Cir.1996).
*14 Prison regulations on hair length are thus related to security and, as such, involve a compelling state interest. Since the security interest at stake cannot meaningfully be achieved appropriately by any different or lesser means than hair length standards, the constitution is not violated when prison officials require inmates to cut their hair. Diaz v. Collins, 114 F.3d, 73 (5th Cir.1997).
Likewise, plaintiffs’ complaint as it relates to the ability of Muslim inmates to attend Friday “Jumah Prayer Service” fails to state a constitutional violation. See, O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 351-352, 107 S.Ct. 2400, 96 L.Ed.2d 282 (1987) (“... the very stringent
10

Brown v. Ridge, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)
requirements as to the time at which Jumu‘ah may be held may make it extraordinarily difficult for prison officials to assure that every Muslim prisoner is able to attend that service. While we in no way minimize the central importance of Jumu‘ah to respondents, we are unwilling to hold that prison officials are required by the Constitution to sacrifice legitimate penological objectives to that end.”)
Ndaula’s objections to the contrary, none of the plaintiffs have alleged that they have been denied the opportunity to freely exercise their religion. Having been given the opportunity to amend and state a claim, their failure to do so suggests that this claim is without merit. Further, nothing of record even suggests that any of the remaining plaintiffs-Patrick Brown, Franklin Moreno, Rafiu Abimbola, Augusto Moreira, Alexander W. Ndaula, or Curtis Banks-are Muslims!
4. Denial of First Amendment Right to the Press
Plaintiffs claimed that the prison administration has circulated a memorandum that purportedly bans all publications from the “holding center.”
As noted in the first Report and Recommendation, a prisoner retains those First Amendment rights that are consistent with his status as a prisoner or within the legitimate penological objectives of the prison. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 523, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984). “[W]hen a prison regulation impinges on inmates’ constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.” Q’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 349, 107 S.Ct. 2400, 96 L.Ed.2d 282 (1987); Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987); Green v. Polunskey, 229 F.3d 486, 489 (5th Cir.2000).
This standard applies to an inmate’s right to receive publications and general correspondence. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 404-19, 109 S.Ct. 1874, 104 L.Ed.2d 459 (1989) (the test regarding a prison regulation allowing prison officials to reject incoming publications found to be detrimental to institutional security is whether it is “reasonably related to a legitimate penological interest”); Turner, 482 U.S. at 84-95; Chriceol v. Phillips, 169 F.3d 313, 315-17 (5th Cir.1999). “Before delivery of a publication may be refused, prison administrators must review the particular issue of the publication in question and make a specific, factual determination that the publication is detrimental” to legitimate penological interests. Guajardo v. Estelle, 580 F.2d 748, 762 (5th Cir.1978).
*15 The Fifth Circuit has held that restrictions on certain

material that has the potential to produce violence are rationally related to the valid penological interests of insuring the safety of prison inmates. Chriceol, 169 F.3d at 315-17. Violence-producing material may include, inter alia, material that would encourage inmates to strike or riot, material that would encourage racial or religious hatred, id., and material that “provides step-by-step descriptions of the manufacture of weapons, explosives, or drugs....” Guajardo, 580 F.2d at 760. A prison regulation may validly restrict material advocating racial hatred on the basis that it would create a serious danger of violence. Chriceol, 169 F.3d at 316.
Courts must defer to the judgment of prison administrators regarding prison security. Oliver v. Scott, 276 F.3d 736, 745 (5th Cir.2002). Relying on O’Lone, supra, the Fifth Circuit has noted four factors which are relevant for determining the validity of a challenged regulation or practice: (1) whether the regulation has a logical connection to the legitimate government interests invoked to justify it; (2) whether there are alternative means of exercising the rights that remain open to the inmates; (3) the impact that accommodation of the asserted constitutional rights will have on other inmates, guards, and prison resources; and (4) the presence or absence of ready alternatives that fully accommodate the prisoner’s rights at de minimus cost to valid penological interests. Chriceol, 169 F.3d at 316.
“[C]entral to all other goals is the institutional consideration of internal security within the corrections facilities themselves.” Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 823 (1974). The security of both inmates and prison employees is a valid penological goal. Hicks v. Garner, 69 F.3d 22, 25 (5th Cir.1995). “Prison administrators ... should be accorded wide-ranging deference in the adoption and execution of policies and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional security.” Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 321-22, 106 S.Ct. 1078, 89 L.Ed.2d 251 (1986).
Prison officials may rely on the “reasonable person” standard when determining whether a publication can and should be censored. Guajardo, 580 F.3d at 761.
Here, plaintiffs did not allege that any particular publications had been censored; instead, they referred to a memorandum suggesting that publications would be banned. To the extent that the “memo” in question was implemented during their stay at CPCF-II, plaintiffs arguably stated a claim for which relief may be granted. However, as with the access to court claims, the constitutional right alleged to have been violated herein does not exist in a vacuum; civil rights plaintiffs must always allege, in addition to the fault of the defendant, some prejudice suffered as a result of that fault. None of the plaintiffs have alleged the unwarranted censorship of a
11

Brown v. Ridge, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)
particular publication. None have alleged that the policy complained of forbade the reception of a publication that would have been received absent the institution of the policy in question. Again, all of the remaining plaintiffs were afforded the opportunity to amend their complaint more adequately state this claim. None availed themselves of this opportunity. Accordingly, the plaintiffs having failed to state a claim for which relief may be granted, the claimed violation of their First Amendment Rights should be dismissed.

5. Conditions of Confinement
*16 Plaintiffs complained about unsanitary or unhealthy conditions of confinement at CPCF-II. None have amended to complain about conditions at their current places of detention.
As noted in the original Report and Recommendation, detainees6 possess a clearly established constitutional right to be free from punishment. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 534-37, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 1871-73, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979). The Supreme Court has held that a detainee’s claims of unconstitutional conditions of confinement are analyzed under the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of due process of law as opposed to the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, which applies only to sentenced inmates. See id. at 535 n. 16, 99 S.Ct. at 1872 n. 16; Hare v. City of Corinth, 74 F.3d 633, 639 (5th Cir.1996). “A ‘condition of confinement’ case is a ‘[c]onstitutional attack [ ] on general conditions, practices, rules, or restrictions of pretrial confinement.” ’ See Scott v. Moore, 114 F.3d 51, 53 (5th Cir.1997) (citing Hare v. City of Corinth, 74 F.3d 633, 644 (5th Cir.1996)).

6

When addressing the rights of immigration detainees,

the Fifth Circuit instructs that the court should look to

jurisprudence establishing the constitutional rights of

pretrial detainees. See Ortega v. Rowe, 796 F.2d 765,

767 (5th Cir.1986).

In analyzing the civil rights claims of detainees, the Fifth Circuit has distinguished between cases challenging specific acts and omissions and those alleging constitutional deprivations by virtue of the general conditions of confinement. See Hare, 74 F.3d at 644. In conditions of confinement cases, the “harm” is said to be caused by the condition itself. “This is true, for example, where inadequate food, heating, or sanitary conditions themselves constitute miserable conditions.” Scott v. Moore, 114 F.3d 51, 53 (5th Cir.1997). The Fifth Circuit has concluded that where a pretrial detainee challenges the general conditions of confinement, as opposed to

particular acts or omissions, a constitutional violation exists only if the court finds that the conditions of confinement are not reasonably related to a legitimate, non-punitive governmental objective. See Hare, 74 F.3d at 640 (citing Bell, 441 U.S. at 538-39, 99 S.Ct. at 1873-74); see also Scott, 114 F.3d at 53 (citing Hare ).
Where a detainee’s allegations are based on a particular act or omission of one or more officials, the action is characterized as an “episodic act or omission” case. See Olabisiomotosho v. City of Houston, 185 F.3d 521, 526 (5th Cir.1999); Hare, 74 F.3d at 645. When an individual government official is sued for a specific act or omission, the detainee-plaintiff must allege and establish that the named defendant acted with subjective deliberate indifference to prove a violation of his constitutional rights. Olabisiomotosho, 185 F.3d at 526 (citing Flores v. County of Hardeman, 124 F.3d 736, 738-39 (5th Cir.1997)). A prison official acts with subjective deliberate indifference when he “had subjective knowledge of a substantial risk of serious harm to a pretrial detainee but responded with deliberate indifference to that risk.” Hare, 74 F.3d at 650. See also Sibley v. Lemaire, 184 F.3d 481, 489 (5th Cir.1999) (“In Hare ... we adopted the same deliberate indifference standard for pretrial detainees as the one articulated by the Supreme Court in Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994), for convicted prisoners. “It is, indeed, fair to say that acting or failing to act with deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm to a prisoner is the equivalent of recklessly disregarding that risk.”). Although the courts have carefully distinguished the conditions of confinement cases from those cases arising from specific acts or omissions, they have also noted that “the reasonable-relationship test employed in conditions cases is ‘functionally equivalent to’ the deliberate indifference standard employed in episodic cases.” Scott, 114 F.3d at 54 (citing Hare, 74 F.3d at 643).
*17 Plaintiffs’ complaint alleged both episodic acts of individuals as well as conditions of confinement.
With regard to the general conditions of confinement, plaintiffs alleged unsanitary living conditions, the denial of sufficient recreation, exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, the lack of sufficient toilet and shower facilities, and the denial of sufficient “extra-curricular” activities.
As to the denial of “extra-curricular” activities, it is clear that the Constitution does not mandate educational, rehabilitative, or vocational programs. See Beck v. Lynaugh, 842 F.2d 759, 762 (5th Cir.1988) (citing Newman v. State of Alabama, 559 F.2d 283, 292 (5th Cir.1977), rev’d in part on other grounds sub nom., Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 98 S.Ct. 3057, 57 L.Ed.2d 1114 (1978)). Further, an inmate has no right to a
12

Brown v. Ridge, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)
job in the prison or to any particular job assignment. See Ingram v. Papalia, 804 F.2d 595, 596 (10th Cir.1986); Garza v. Miller, 688 F.2d 480, 485 (7th Cir.1982); Fuller v. Rich, 925 F.Supp. 459, 462 (E.D.Tex.1995). Given that detainees do not have a right to education or employment while housed at CPCF-II, plaintiffs have failed to show that the lack of educational and employment opportunities afforded to immigration detainees is violative of any constitutional rights.
As to the exposure claim, it is now clear that detainees have the right to be free from exposure to high levels of environmental tobacco smoke if it is established that prison smoking policies amounted to unreasonable risk and deliberate indifference to his health. See, e.g., Rochon v. City of Angola, 122 F.3d 319, 320 (5th Cir.1997).
The Supreme Court has applied a two-prong test to determine whether exposure to second-hand smoke violates the Constitution. First, a plaintiff asserting such a claim must prove objectively that he is “being exposed to unreasonably high levels of ETS [Environmental Tobacco Smoke].” Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 35, 113 S.Ct. 2475, 2482, 125 L.Ed.2d 22 (1993) (emphasis added). In assessing this first factor, the court must conduct an inquiry into the seriousness of the potential harm and into the likelihood that second-hand smoke will actually cause such harm. See id. 509 U.S. at 37, 113 S.Ct. at 2482. The court also has to determine “whether society considers the risk ... to be so grave that it violates contemporary standards of decency to expose anyone unwillingly to such a risk.” Id. Second, the plaintiff must show that prison authorities demonstrated a “deliberate indifference” to his plight. See id.
Here, plaintiffs’ claims fail to meet the first prong of the Helling test. Plaintiffs have not alleged that they (either individually or collectively) were exposed to “unreasonably high levels of ETS.” Id. 509 U.S. at 35, 113 S.Ct. at 2482. Further, plaintiffs did not allege any actual physical impact resulting from their exposure; their request for only “nominal” damages suggests that the exposure did not reach the level of a constitutional violation. See Oliver v. Deen, 77 F.3d 156, 158 (7th Cir.1996) (denying an Eighth Amendment claim by an asthma sufferer who said the smoke caused him to wheeze, gasp for breath, and suffer from dizziness and nausea). Plaintiffs were given the opportunity to amend their complaint to cure this deficiency, but did not avail themselves of the opportunity.
*18 In addition, plaintiffs’ case can be factually distinguished from Helling. The prisoner there shared a cell with another inmate who smoked five packs of cigarettes a day. See id. 509 U.S. at 28, 113 S.Ct. at 2478. Similarly, in two Fifth Circuit cases that have recognized a potential ETS-based Eighth Amendment claim, the exposure to second-hand smoke was substantially more

severe and sustained than that alleged by the plaintiffs. See Whitley v. Hunt, 158 F.3d 882, 888 (5th Cir.1998) (the prisoner shared living quarters with a smoker); Rochon v. City of Angola, 122 F.3d 319, 320 (5th Cir.1997) (the inmate was “required to live and work in ‘environments filled with tobacco smoke” ’). In contrast, plaintiffs do not allege that they are forced to live in a smoke-filled environment. They only allege that there are no designated smoking areas. Society would not necessarily consider this circumstance to “violate [ ] contemporary standards of decency.” Helling, 509 U.S. at 37, 113 S.Ct. at 2482.
Likewise, plaintiffs’ generalized claims of unsanitary conditions and lack of sufficient restroom facilities fails to state a valid constitutional claim. The Constitution does not mandate “comfortable prisons,” (Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 349, 101 S.Ct. 2392, 2400, 69 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981)). However, the Fourteenth Amendment does prohibit detainees from being held under inhumane conditions. Plaintiffs’ allegations do not suggest that they were forced to endure such inhumane conditions. Their discomfort owing to the conditions of confinement was obviously not such that it required compensation beyond merely nominal damages.
Again, all remaining plaintiffs were given the opportunity to flesh out these claims and to provide further information concerning the deleterious effects of their exposure to tobacco smoke and other unhealthy and unsanitary conditions of confinement. Yet none of the plaintiffs availed themselves of this opportunity.
6. Retaliation
Plaintiffs contended that their transfers to CPCF-II were acts of retaliation. Plaintiffs suggested that DHS/ICE officials transferred them to that facility in retaliation for their having asserted their rights in their respective immigration proceedings. They further claimed that detainee Abimbola was relieved from his job as inmate counsel in retaliation for having complained of the inadequacies of the facility’s law library.
“To state a valid claim for retaliation under section 1983, a prisoner must allege (1) a specific constitutional right, (2) the defendant’s intent to retaliate against the prisoner for his or her exercise of that right, (3) a retaliatory adverse act, and (4) causation.” Jones v. Greninger, 188 F.3d at 324-25. “[I]f the [prisoner] is unable to point to a specific constitutional right that has been violated, the claim will fail.” Id. at 325. “The [prisoner] must allege more than his personal belief that he is the victim of retaliation,” id.; rather, he “must produce direct evidence of motivation or, the more probable scenario, ‘allege a
13

Brown v. Ridge, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)
chronology of events from which retaliation may plausibly be inferred[,]” ’ Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 1166 (5th Cir.1995) (quoting Cain v. Lane, 857 F.2d 1139, 1143 n. 6 (7th Cir.1988)). Finally, “causation” requires the prisoner to show that “but for the retaliatory motive the complained of incident ... would not have occurred.” Johnson v. Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 299, 310 (5th Cir.1997). “This places a significant burden on the [prisoner].” Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d at 1166.
*19 Here, plaintiffs have offered only conclusory opinions that the defendants had a retaliatory motive. Plaintiffs’ “[b]are allegations of malice do not suffice to subject” the defendants “either to the costs of trial or the burdens of broadreaching discovery.” Al-Ra‘id v. Ingle, 69 F.3d 28, 33 (5th Cir.1995). Clearly, plaintiffs’ conclusory allegations of retaliation are insufficient to establish a constitutional claim for retaliation. See Holloway v. Hornsby, 23 F.3d 944, 945 (5th Cir.1994).
As to the claim of retaliation as it relates to detainee Abimbola, as stated above, since a detainee has no right to a job in the prison or to any particular job assignment, his subsequent loss of such a job cannot support a claim for retaliation. See Ingram v. Papalia, 804 F.2d 595, 596 (10th Cir.1986); Garza v. Miller, 688 F.2d 480, 485 (7th Cir.1982); Fuller v. Rich, 925 F.Supp. 459, 462 (E.D.Tex.1995).

As to the claim that detainee Nasrallah was denied a copy of the Koran by the prison chaplain, such claim is frivolous. While prison officials cannot (except under limited circumstances) prohibit the free exercise of religion, they are not required to provide religious material to inmates. See Frank v. Terrell, 858 F.2d 1090 (5th Cir.1988) (quoting the District Court’s reasons for judgment which stated, “[t]here cannot possibly be any constitutional or legal requirement that the government provide materials for every religion and sect practiced in this diverse country.” (quoting Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 323, 92 S.Ct. 1079, 1082, 31 L.Ed.2d 263 (1972) (Burger, C.J., concurring)). Accord, Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F.Supp. 1254, 1264 (N.D.Ind.1981), aff’d, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir.1983); Cochran v. Sielaff, 405 F.Supp. 1126, 1128 (S.D.Ill.1976).)
*20 Finally, as to the claim that detainee Nasrallah and his religious beliefs were insulted by the prison Chaplain, those allegations fail to state a claim for which relief may be granted since mere allegations of verbal abuse do not present actionable claims under § 1983. See Bender v. Brumley, 1 F.3d 271, 274 n. 4 (5th Cir.1993).
Finally, any claims involving plaintiff Nasrallah were rendered moot by his dismissal as a plaintiff from this suit.

7. Physical and Verbal Abuse
Plaintiffs’ claimed that a fellow detainee, Norman Butte, was assaulted by an unnamed prison official and that detainee Gregario Machvado was assaulted by state inmates. However, plaintiffs have no standing to assert these claims, since neither Butte nor Machvado joined as plaintiffs in this litigation. Likewise, plaintiffs lack standing to complain of the harm alleged to have been suffered by detainee Gervaise Blackwood since Blackwood voluntarily withdrew from this suit and alleged in his Motion to Withdraw that his fellow detainees named him as a plaintiff without his consent. See Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 99-100, 88 S.Ct. 1942, 20 L.Ed.2d 947 (1968) (“The ‘gist of the question of standing’ is whether the party seeking relief has ‘alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions.’ In other words, when standing is placed in issue in a case, the question is whether the person whose standing is challenged is a proper party to request an adjudication of a particular issue and not whether the issue itself is justiciable.”)

8. Conclusion
The undersigned hereby re-instates the Report and Recommendation submitted to the court on July 26, 2004. [Doc. 41] For the reasons set forth in that Report and Recommendation, and for the additional reasons set forth herein, dismissal of all claims against all remaining defendants is recommended.
Therefore,
IT IS RECOMMENDED that the civil rights complaints of plaintiffs Patrick L. Brown, Franklin Moreno, Rafiu Abimbola, Prince C. Brown, Augusto Moreira, Alexander W. Ndaula, and Curtis Banks be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as MOOT, and for failing to state claims for which relief may be granted.
Under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 72(b), parties aggrieved by this recommendation have ten (10) business days from service of this report and recommendation to file specific, written objections with the clerk of court. A party may respond to another party’s objections within ten (10) days after being served with a copy thereof.
Failure to file written objections to the proposed factual
14

Brown v. Ridge, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)
finding and/or the proposed legal conclusions reflected in this Report and Recommendation within ten (10) days following the date of its service, or within the time frame authorized by Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b), shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking either the factual findings or the legal conclusions accepted by the District Court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglas v. United Services Automobile Association, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th

Cir.1996).
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Chambers at Alexandria, Louisiana, this 19th day of January, 2005.
	  

15

 
 Brown v. Ridge
United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Alexandria Division June 6, 2006, Decided ; June 6, 2006, Filed CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-0759-A

Reporter: 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36824 PATRICK BROWN, ET AL. -vs- TOM RIDGE, ET AL.
Prior History: Brown v. Ridge, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42560 (W.D. La., Jan. 19, 2005)
Counsel: [*1] Patrick L Brown, Plaintiff, Pro se, Oakdale, LA.
Fredo Gustave, Plaintiff, Pro se, Ferriday, LA.
Ismael Karaca, Plaintiff, Pro se, Ferriday, LA.

reviewing the pleadings in this case, including Rafiu Abimbola's [*2] "Objection to the Magistrate Judge's Last Report and Recommendation", which included amendments to his complaint (Doc. 152), and concurring in part with the Magistrate Judge's findings under the applicable law, this Court adopts the Report and Recommendation as to all Plaintiffs except as to Mr. Abimbola's claims for denial of his right to religious freedom and violations of his First Amendment rights to the press. As to these claims, we adopt the Report and Recommendation subject to the modifications outlined below.

Eric Bell, Plaintiff, Pro se, Gadsden, AL. Ramit Narang, Plaintiff, Pro se, Ferriday, LA. Franklin Moreno, Plaintiff, Pro se, Gadsden, AL. Leroy Bacchus, Plaintiff, Pro se, Gadsden, AL. Rafiu Abimbola, Plaintiff, Pro se, Gadsden, AL. Prince C Brown, Plaintiff, Pro se, Oakdale, LA. Gervase Blackwood, Plaintiff, Pro se, Ferriday, LA. Hussein Nasrallah, Plaintiff, Pro se, Gadsden, AL. Augusto Moreira, Plaintiff, Pro se, Lake Charles, LA. Alexander W Ndaula, Plaintiff, Pro se, Boston, MA. Curtis Banks, Plaintiff, Pro se, Gadsden, AL. Ismet Karaca, Petitioner, Pro se, Pine Prairie, LA. Judges: DEE D. DRELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE. MAGISTRATE JUDGE KIRK. Opinion by: DEE D. DRELL

The Magistrate Judge recommends we dismiss the claims because none of the Plaintiffs, who initially only sought declaratory and injunctive relief, are still incarcerated at Concordia Parish Correctional Facility, Phase II (CPCF-II). (Doc. 109). However, in his amendments, Mr. Abimbola requests "monetary damages of $ 50,000.00 to those aliens that was [sic] detained at CPCF and Etowah for extended period of time." (Doc. 152). Considering Mr. Abimbola's new request for monetary relief, his claims for monetary damages arising from alleged violations occurring while incarcerated at CPCF-II are not moot. Because the other Plaintiffs did not join in Mr. Abimbola's amendments [*3] to the complaint and because Mr. Abimbola is not an attorney acting in a representative capacity, the amendments to the complaint cannot salvage the other Plaintiffs' claims. Mr. Abimbola's claims for injunctive and declaratory relief for injuries allegedly sustained while incarcerated at CPCF-II are moot because he no longer resides in that facility. Despite Mr. Abimobla's contention that his case is capable of repetition yet evading review (Doc. 152), any suggestion of relief based on the possibility of being transferred back to a facility is too speculative to merit relief. Herman v. Holiday, 238 F.3d 660 (5th Cir. 2001). Therefore, all of Mr. Abimbola's claims for injunctive and declaratory relief are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. As outlined below, two of his claims for monetary relief will not be so dismissed.

Opinion
JUDGMENT
Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 109) addressing whether the original complaint filed by several Plaintiffs, some of whom were previously dismissed, should be dismissed. After

The Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal of Mr. Abimbola's claims for denial of his right to religious freedom. Mr. Abimbola, a Muslim, claims that Muslims were not permitted to congregate for "Jumah Prayer service" on Fridays even though Christians were permitted to gather for religious purposes. (Doc. 1). We agree with the Magistrate's recommendation except [*4] in so far as Mr. Abimbola has amended his complaint to seek

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36824, *4

Page 2 of 2

monetary damages. Claims for monetary damages to he may have suffered as a result of that withholding, we will

compensate a detainee for imposition on his right to religious permit his claim to continue.

freedom may remain viable even after he has been transferred

to a new location. See Sutton v. Rasheed, 323 F.3d 236 (3rd Therefore, all claims made by Plaintiffs other than Rafiu

Cir. 2003); Patrick v. LeFevre, 745 F.2d 153 (2nd Cir. 1984). Abimbola are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. All of Mr.

Abimbola's claims are DISMISSED WITH

The Magistrate Judge also recommends dismissal of Mr. PREJUDICE [*5] except for his claims seeking monetary

Abimobla's claim for alleged violations of his First damages as a result of alleged violations of his right to

Amendment rights to the press because Mr. Abimobla had not religious freedom and his right to the press.

alleged any specific injury. However, Mr. Abimobla now

specifically alleges that "he is an active subscribers [sic] to SIGNED on this 6th day of June, 2006, at Alexandria,

the Economist Magazines [sic], and several issues of these Louisiana.

[sic] magazines were returned to the publisher." (Doc. 152). To the extent Mr. Abimobla has alleged that his subscription DEE D. DRELL

to the Economist magazine was withheld from him and he

seeks monetary damages for any injury

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana
Query •

Reports •

Utilities • Logout

U.S. District Court

CLOSED, PRISON

Western District of Louisiana (Alexandria)

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:04-cv-00759-DDD-JDK

Brown, et al v. Ridge, et al Assigned to: Honorable Dee D Drell Referred to: Magistrate Judge James D Kirk Demand: $0 Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights Plaintiff Patrick L Brown TERMINATED: 06/06/2006
Plaintiff Fredo Gustave TERMINATED: 09/30/2005
Plaintiff Ismael Karaca TERMINATED: 05/13/2004
Plaintiff Eric Bell TERMINATED: 09/30/2005

Date Filed: 03/29/2004 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant
represented by Patrick L Brown c/o Angela Brown 767 Eastern Parkway Apt 1 Brooklyn, NY 11213 PRO SE
represented by Fredo Gustave Concordia Parish Corr Facility Phase II 26362 Hwy 15 Ferriday, LA 71334 PRO SE
represented by Ismael Karaca Concordia Parish Corr Facility Phase II 26362 Hwy 15 Ferriday, LA 71334 PRO SE
represented by Eric Bell #A35592231 Etowah County Detention Center 827 Forrest Ave Gadsden, AL 35901 PRO SE

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl?108161082825864-L_186_0-1 (1 of 40)6/25/2007 4:34:41 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana
Plaintiff Ramit Narang TERMINATED: 09/30/2005
Plaintiff Franklin Moreno TERMINATED: 06/06/2006
Plaintiff Leroy Bacchus TERMINATED: 09/30/2005
Plaintiff Rafiu Abimbola
Plaintiff Prince C Brown TERMINATED: 06/06/2006
Plaintiff

represented by Ramit Narang 19154-265 A79070568 Concordia Parish Corr Facility Phase II 26362 Hwy 15 Ferriday, LA 71334 PRO SE
represented by Franklin Moreno Etowah County Detention Center 827 Forrest Avenue Gadsden, AL 35901 PRO SE
represented by Leroy Bacchus #A18 124 301 Etowah County Detention Center 827 Forrest Ave Gadsden, AL 35901 PRO SE
represented by Rafiu Abimbola #A72-852-210 Etowah County Detention Center 827 Forrest Ave Gadsden, AL 35901 PRO SE
represented by Prince C Brown ##16478-26 Federal Detention Ctr P O Box 5010 Oakdale, LA 71463 PRO SE

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl?108161082825864-L_186_0-1 (2 of 40)6/25/2007 4:34:41 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana
Gervase Blackwood TERMINATED: 05/28/2004
Plaintiff Hussein Nasrallah TERMINATED: 09/30/2005
Plaintiff Augusto Moreira TERMINATED: 06/06/2006
Plaintiff Alexander W Ndaula TERMINATED: 06/06/2006
Plaintiff Curtis Banks TERMINATED: 06/06/2006
V. Petitioner

represented by Gervase Blackwood Concordia Parish Corr Facility Phase II 26362 Hwy 15 Ferriday, LA 71334 PRO SE
represented by Hussein Nasrallah #A29443340 Etowah County Detention Center 827 Forrest Ave Gadsden, AL 35901 PRO SE
represented by Augusto Moreira A41960258/18561265 Federal Detention Center P O Box 5010 Lake Charles, LA 71463 PRO SE
represented by Alexander W Ndaula Soros Justice Fellow/National Immigration Project 14 Beacon Street Suite 602 Boston, MA 02108 Email: malik@nationalimmigrationproject.org PRO SE
represented by Curtis Banks Etowah County Detention Center 827 Forrest Avenue Gadsden, AL 35901 PRO SE

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl?108161082825864-L_186_0-1 (3 of 40)6/25/2007 4:34:41 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana
Ismet Karaca TERMINATED: 05/13/2004
V. Defendant Tom Ridge Defendant Christine Davis Defendant Nancy Hooks Defendant Sheriffs Dept Concordia Parish TERMINATED: 09/30/2005 Defendant Lance Moore

represented by Ismet Karaca #A75-143-830 Pine Prairie Corr Ctr P O Box 650 Pine Prairie, LA 70576 PRO SE

Date Filed

#

Docket Text

03/29/2004 03/29/2004
03/29/2004 03/29/2004

Amount of fee $0/IFP. (Prest, B) (Entered: 03/31/2004)
**Set prison flag. Case held in Shreveport due to deficiency. (Prest, B) (Entered: 04/01/2004)
1 COMPLAINT filed. (Prest, B) (Entered: 04/01/2004)
2 MOTION by Patrick L Brown to proceed in forma pauperis with Proposed Order referred to Magistrate Judge Robert H Shemwell. (Prest, B) Modified on 04/01/2004 Modified on 1/9/2007 to terminate the motion as of 6/6/06 judgment terminating this plaintiff(Davis, C). (Entered: 04/01/2004)

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl?108161082825864-L_186_0-1 (4 of 40)6/25/2007 4:34:41 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana

03/29/2004

3 MOTION by Patrick L Brown for class certification referred to Lafayette Staff Attorney. (Prest, B) Modified on 04/01/2004 (Entered: 04/01/2004)

04/02/2004

4 MEMORANDUM ORDER that plaintiff has 30 days to submit either $150 filing fee or a completed in forma pauperis application. Pro se response due 5/3/04 for Fredo Gustave . (signed by Magistrate Judge Robert H Shemwell) NOE by: bp (Prest, B) (Entered: 04/02/2004)

04/02/2004

5 MEMORANDUM ORDER that plaintiff has 30 days to submit either $150 filing fee or a completed in forma pauperis application. Pro se response due 5/3/04 for Ismael Karaca . (signed by Magistrate Judge Robert H Shemwell) NOE by: bp (Prest, B) (Entered: 04/02/2004)

04/02/2004

6 MEMORANDUM ORDER that plaintiff has 30 days to submit either $150 filing fee or a completed in forma pauperis application. Pro se response due 5/3/04 for Eric Bell . (signed by Magistrate Judge Robert H Shemwell) NOE by: bp (Prest, B) (Entered: 04/02/2004)

04/02/2004

7 MEMORANDUM ORDER that plaintiff has 30 days to submit either $150 filing fee or a completed in forma pauperis application. Pro se response due 5/3/04 for Ramit Narang . (signed by Magistrate Judge Robert H Shemwell) NOE by: bp (Prest, B) (Entered: 04/02/2004)

04/02/2004

8 MEMORANDUM ORDER that plaintiff submit within 30 days either $150 filing fee or a completed IFP application. Pro se response due 5/3/04 for Franklin Moreno . (signed by Magistrate Judge Robert H Shemwell) NOE by: bp (Prest, B) (Entered: 04/02/2004)

04/02/2004

9 MEMORANDUM ORDER that plaintiff has 30 days to submit either $150 filing fee or a completed in forma pauperis application. Pro se response due 5/3/04 for Leroy Bacchus . (signed by Magistrate Judge Robert H Shemwell) NOE by: bp (Prest, B) (Entered: 04/02/2004)

04/02/2004

10 MEMORANDUM ORDER that plaintiff has 30 days to submit either $150 filing fee or a completed in forma pauperis application. Pro se response due 5/3/04 for Rafiu Abimbola . (signed by Magistrate Judge Robert H Shemwell) NOE by: bp (Prest, B) (Entered: 04/02/2004)

04/02/2004

11 MEMORANDUM ORDER that plaintiff has 30 days to submit either $150 filing fee or a completed in forma pauperis application. Pro se response due 5/3/04 for Prince C Brown . (signed by Magistrate Judge Robert H Shemwell) NOE by: bp (Prest, B) (Entered: 04/02/2004)

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl?108161082825864-L_186_0-1 (5 of 40)6/25/2007 4:34:41 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana

04/02/2004

12 MEMORANDUM ORDER that plaintiff has 30 days to submit either $150 filing fee or a completed in forma pauperis application. Pro se response due 5/3/04 for Gervase Blackwood . (signed by Magistrate Judge Robert H Shemwell) NOE by: bp (Prest, B) (Entered: 04/02/2004)

04/02/2004

13 MEMORANDUM ORDER that plaintiff has 30 days to submit either $150 filing fee or a completed in forma pauperis application. Pro se response due 5/3/04 for Hussein Nasrallah . (signed by Magistrate Judge Robert H Shemwell) NOE by: bp (Prest, B) (Entered: 04/02/2004)

04/02/2004

14 MEMORANDUM ORDER that plaintiff has 30 days to submit either $150 filing fee or a completed in forma pauperis application. Pro se response due 5/3/04 for Augusto Moreira . (signed by Magistrate Judge Robert H Shemwell) NOE by: bp (Prest, B) (Entered: 04/02/2004)

04/02/2004

15 MEMORANDUM ORDER that plaintiff has 30 days to submit either $150 filing fee or a completed in forma pauperis application. Pro se response due 5/3/04 for Alexander Ndaula . (signed by Magistrate Judge Robert H Shemwell) NOE by: bp (Prest, B) (Entered: 04/02/2004)

04/02/2004

16 MEMORANDUM ORDER that plaintiff has 30 days to submit either $150 filing fee or a completed in forma pauperis application. Pro se response due 5/3/04 for Curtis Banks . (signed by Magistrate Judge Robert H Shemwell) NOE by: bp (Prest, B) (Entered: 04/02/2004)

04/08/2004

RECEIVED copy of [11-2] memorandum order addressed to Prince C Brown at Conc Par Corr Fac II from U S Postal Svc marked: Return to sender (McDaniel, C) (Entered: 04/08/2004)

04/08/2004

RECEIVED copy of [10-2] memorandum order addressed to Rafiu Abimbola at Conc Par Corr Fac II from U S Postal Svc marked: Return to sender (McDaniel, C) (Entered: 04/08/2004)

04/19/2004

RECEIVED copy of [9-2] memorandum order addressed to Leroy Bacchus at Concordia Parish Corr Facility Phase II from U S Postal Svc marked: Return to sender NOT HERE (Davis, C) (Entered: 04/20/2004)

04/21/2004

17 DEFICIENT PLEADING submitted by Hussein Nasrallah. Name of pleading: Motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Reason for deficiency: Not signed by plaintiff or authorized officer. (Prest, B) (Entered: 04/22/2004)

04/21/2004

20 NOTICE by Eric Bell of change of address (McDaniel, C) (Entered: 04/29/2004)

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl?108161082825864-L_186_0-1 (6 of 40)6/25/2007 4:34:41 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana

04/21/2004

21 MOTION by Eric Bell to proceed in forma pauperis with Proposed Order referred to Magistrate Judge Robert H Shemwell (McDaniel, C) (Entered: 04/29/2004)

04/22/2004

18 MEMORANDUM ORDER that plaintiff Hussein Nasrallah submit within 30 days an IFP application that is signed, with a signed authorization and completed by accounts officer ( signed by Magistrate Judge Robert H Shemwell) NOE by: cm (McDaniel, C) (Entered: 04/23/2004)

04/26/2004

19 NOTICE by Patrick L Brown of change of address; address updated (Davis, C) (Entered: 04/27/2004)

04/29/2004

23 NOTICE by Rafiu Abimbola of change of address and asking for a copy of the docket sheet; clerk updated the address and sent plaintiff a copy of the docket sheet (Davis, C) (Entered: 05/05/2004)

04/29/2004

24 MOTION by Rafiu Abimbola to proceed in forma pauperis with Proposed Order referred to Magistrate Judge Robert H Shemwell (Davis, C) (Entered: 05/05/2004)

04/29/2004

25 MOTION by Alexander W Ndaula to proceed in forma pauperis with Proposed Order referred to Magistrate Judge Robert H Shemwell (Davis, C) (Entered: 05/05/2004)

04/29/2004

26 NOTICE by Augusto Moreira of change of address; address updated this date (Davis, C) (Entered: 05/05/2004)

04/29/2004

27 MOTION by Augusto Moreira to proceed in forma pauperis with Proposed Order referred to Magistrate Judge Robert H Shemwell (Davis, C) (Entered: 05/05/2004)

04/30/2004

22 MEMORANDUM ORDER granting [21-1] motion to proceed in forma pauperis as to ERIC C BELL (signed by Magistrate Judge Robert H Shemwell) NOE by: cm (McDaniel, C) (Entered: 04/30/2004)

04/30/2004

RECEIVED incomplete ifp forms from plaintiff Prince Brown; clerk noticed plaintiff had been moved from Concorida to FDC/Oakdale; clerk sent to plaintiff the returned documents, (#11 and forms, along with a copy of the docket sheet), that were returned to clerk on 4/8/04, to the plaintiff at his new address with a note advising him to fill out the ifp forms completely and sign them (Davis, C) (Entered: 05/05/2004)

04/30/2004

28 NOTICE by Prince C Brown of change of address; address updated this date (Davis, C) (Entered: 05/05/2004)

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl?108161082825864-L_186_0-1 (7 of 40)6/25/2007 4:34:41 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana

05/05/2004

29 MOTION by Ismet Karaca to dismiss Ismael Karaca with Proposed Order referred to Magistrate Judge James D Kirk (Davis, C) (Entered: 05/05/2004)

05/07/2004

30 MEMORANDUM ORDER granting [24-1] motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (signed by Magistrate Judge Robert H Shemwell) NOE by: bp (Prest, B) (Entered: 05/07/2004)

05/07/2004

31 MEMORANDUM ORDER granting [25-1] motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (signed by Magistrate Judge Robert H Shemwell) NOE by: bp (Prest, B) (Entered: 05/07/2004)

05/07/2004

32 MEMORANDUM ORDER granting [27-1] motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (signed by Magistrate Judge Robert H Shemwell) NOE by: bp (Prest, B) (Entered: 05/07/2004)

05/13/2004

33 ORDER granting [29-1] motion to dismiss Ismael Karaca ( signed by Magistrate Judge James D. Kirk ) NOE by: cm (McDaniel, C) (Entered: 05/14/2004)

05/18/2004

34 MOTION by Prince C Brown to proceed in forma pauperis with Proposed Order referred to Magistrate Judge Robert H Shemwell. (Prest, B) (Entered: 05/20/2004)

05/20/2004

35 MEMORANDUM ORDER granting [34-1] (Prince C Brown) motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (signed by Magistrate Judge Robert H Shemwell) NOE by: bp (Prest, B) (Entered: 05/20/2004)

05/20/2004

RECEIVED copy of [33-1] order addressed to Ismet Karaca, Curtis Banks, Prince C Brown, Leroy Bacchus, Franklin Moreno, Ramit Narang, Ismael Karaca at Conc Par Corr Facility from U S Postal Svc marked: Return to sender - refused (McDaniel, C) (Entered: 05/20/2004)

05/21/2004

RECEIVED copy of [33-1] order addressed to Fredo Gustave at Conc Par Corr Fac PH II from U S Postal Svc marked: Return to sender (McDaniel, C) (Entered: 05/21/2004)

05/24/2004

**RECORD LOCATION flag set to LAFAYETTE; (1 volumes, 0 exhibit folders) (Davis, C) (Entered: 05/24/2004)

05/24/2004

38 NOTICE by Leroy Bacchus of change of address (McDaniel, C) (Entered: 06/04/2004)

05/24/2004

39 MOTION by Leroy Bacchus to proceed in forma pauperis with Proposed Order referred to Magistrate Judge Robert H. Shemwell (McDaniel, C) (Entered: 06/04/2004)

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl?108161082825864-L_186_0-1 (8 of 40)6/25/2007 4:34:41 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana

05/25/2004

36 MOTION by Gervase Blackwood to withdraw from petition without prejudice with Proposed Order referred to Magistrate Judge James D Kirk (McDaniel, C) (Entered: 05/26/2004)

05/28/2004

37 ORDER granting [36-1] motion to withdraw from petition without prejudice. (signed by Magistrate Judge James D Kirk) NOE by: uh (Harrison, U) (Entered: 05/28/2004)

06/09/2004

40 MEMORANDUM ORDER granting LEROY BACCHUS [39-1] motion to proceed in forma pauperis (signed by Magistrate Judge Robert H Shemwell) NOE by: cm (McDaniel, C) (Entered: 06/09/2004)

07/26/2004

41 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Complaint, 3 Motion for
Miscellaneous Relief filed by Patrick L Brown recommending this complaint be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE AS MOOT, anf for failing to state a claim for which relief may be granted; further that Brown's motion for class certification be DENIED. Objections to R&R due by 8/13/2004. Signed by Judge James D Kirk on 07/23/04. (Leleux, M) (Entered: 07/26/2004)

08/02/2004

MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Ramit Narang, Concordia Par Corr Facility Phase II, re: 41 Report and
Recommendations, returned by U S Postal Svc marked: refused. (Davis, C) (Entered: 08/03/2004)

08/02/2004

MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Patrick L Brown, Concordia Par Corr Facility Phase II, re: 41 Report and
Recommendations, returned by U S Postal Svc marked: REFUSED. (Davis, C) (Entered: 08/03/2004)

08/03/2004

MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Curtis Banks, Patrick L Brown, Fredo Gustave, Ismael Karaca, Ismet Karaca, Franklin Moreno, Ramit Narang, Concordia Par Corr Facility PH II, re: 41
Report and Recommendations, returned by U S Postal Svc marked: return to sender. (McDaniel, C) (Entered: 08/04/2004)

08/09/2004

MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Eric Bell, Etowah County Detention Center, re: 41 Report and Recommendations,
returned by U S Postal Svc marked: Attempted not known. (Davis, C) (Entered: 08/10/2004)

08/09/2004

MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Ismet Karaca, Pine Prairie Corr Center, re: 41 Report and Recommendations, returned by U
S Postal Svc marked: ATTEMPTED/NOT KNOWN. (Davis, C) (Entered: 08/10/2004)

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl?108161082825864-L_186_0-1 (9 of 40)6/25/2007 4:34:41 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana

08/09/2004

42 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 41 Report and Recommendations, by Rafiu Abimbola. (Davis, C) (Entered: 08/10/2004)

08/12/2004

REMARK: Resent copy of R&R to Alexander Ndaula at new address (McDaniel, C) (Entered: 08/12/2004)

08/12/2004

43 ORDER granting 42 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/ Reply re 42 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 41 Report and Recommendations, Responses due by 9/12/2004 Replies due by 9/12/2004.Signed by Judge James D Kirk on 8/12/2004. (Davis, C) (Entered: 08/16/2004)

08/24/2004

MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Curtis Banks, Concordia Parish Corr Facility Phase II, 26362 Hwy 15, Ferriday LA 71334, re: 43 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/
Reply, returned by U S Postal Svc marked: Refused - Return to Sender. (Dean, S) (Entered: 08/25/2004)

08/24/2004

MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Gervase Blackwood, Concordia Parish Corr Facility Phase II, 26362 Hwy 15, Ferriday LA 71334, re: 43 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/
Reply, returned by U S Postal Svc marked: Refused - Return to Sender. (Dean, S) (Entered: 08/25/2004)

08/24/2004

MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Patrick L Brown, Concordia Parish Corr Facility Phase II, 26362 Hwy 15, Ferriday LA 71334, re: 43 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/
Reply, returned by U S Postal Svc marked: Refused - Return to Sender. (Dean, S) (Entered: 08/25/2004)

08/24/2004

MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Fredo Gustave, Concordia Parish Corr Facility Phase II, 26362 Hwy 15, Ferriday LA 71334, re: 43 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/
Reply, returned by U S Postal Svc marked: Refused - Return to Sender. (Dean, S) (Entered: 08/25/2004)

08/24/2004

MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Franklin Moreno, Concordia Parish Corr Facility Phase II, 26362 Hwy 15, Fereriday LA 71334, re: 43 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/
Reply, returned by U S Postal Svc marked: Refused - Return to Sender. (Dean, S) (Entered: 08/25/2004)

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl?108161082825864-L_186_0-1 (10 of 40)6/25/2007 4:34:41 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana

08/24/2004

MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Ramit Narang, Concordia Parish Corr Facility Phase II, 26362 Hwy 15 19154-265 A79070568, Ferriday LA 71334, re: 43 Order on Motion for Extension
of Time to File Response/Reply, returned by U S Postal Svc marked: Refused - Return to Sender. (Dean, S) (Entered: 08/25/2004)

08/27/2004

MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Ismet Karaca, Pine Prairie Corr Center, re: 43 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to
File Response/Reply, returned by U S Postal Svc marked: inmate not found. (Davis, C) (Entered: 08/30/2004)

08/30/2004

MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Hussein Nasrallah, Etowah County Detention Center, re: 43 Order on Motion for Extension
of Time to File Response/Reply, returned by U S Postal Svc marked: ATTEMPTED/NOT KNOWN. (Davis, C) (Entered: 08/31/2004)

09/08/2004

MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable:, Eric Bell Etowah Co Det Ctr 827 Forrest Ave Gadsden AL 35901, re: 43 Order on Motion for
Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, returned by U S Postal Svc marked: attempted not known. (Prest, B) (Entered: 09/08/2004)

09/15/2004

44 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 41 Report and Recommendations, by Alexander W Ndaula. (McDaniel, C) (Entered: 09/15/2004)

09/21/2004

45 ORDER granting 44 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/ Reply as to 41 Report and Recommendations. Objections due by 10/23/2004. Signed by Judge James D. Kirk on 09/20/04. (Simpson, J) Modified on 9/21/2004 (Simpson, J). (Entered: 09/21/2004)

09/21/2004

46 SECOND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME to file objection to report and recommendation by Alexander W Ndaula. (Reeves, T) (Entered: 09/21/2004)

09/27/2004

47 ORDER granting 46 Motion for Extension to file objections to this
court's 07/26/04 Report & Recommendation [Doc. #41]. Plaintiff Alexander W. Ndaula is ORDERED to file objections on or before 11/23/04. Signed by Judge James D. Kirk on 09/23/04. (Simpson, J) Modified on 9/27/2004 (Simpson, J). (Entered: 09/27/2004)

09/27/2004

MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Ismael Karaca, Concordai Parish Corr Facility Phase II, re: 45 Order on Motion for
Extension of Time to File Response/Reply returned by U S Postal Svc marked: REFUSED. (Davis, C) (Entered: 09/28/2004)

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl?108161082825864-L_186_0-1 (11 of 40)6/25/2007 4:34:41 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana

09/27/2004

MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Ramit Narang, Concordia Parish Corr Facility Phase II, re: 45 Order on Motion for
Extension of Time to File Response/Reply returned by U S Postal Svc marked: REFUSED. (Davis, C) (Entered: 09/28/2004)

09/27/2004

MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Franklin Moreno, Concordia Parish Corr Facility Phase II, re: 45 Order on Motion for
Extension of Time to File Response/Reply returned by U S Postal Svc marked: REFUSED. (Davis, C) (Entered: 09/28/2004)

09/27/2004

MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Fredo Gustave, Concordia Parish Corr Facility Phase II, re: 45 Order on Motion for
Extension of Time to File Response/Reply returned by U S Postal Svc marked: RFEUSED. (Davis, C) (Entered: 09/28/2004)

09/27/2004

MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Patrick L Brown, Concordia Parish Corr Facility Phase II, re: 45 Order on Motion for
Extension of Time to File Response/Reply returned by U S Postal Svc marked: REFUSED. (Davis, C) (Entered: 09/28/2004)

09/27/2004

MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Gervase Blackwood, Concordia Parish Corr Facility Phase II, re: 45 Order on Motion for
Extension of Time to File Response/Reply returned by U S Postal Svc marked: REFUSED. (Davis, C) (Entered: 09/28/2004)

09/27/2004

MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Curtis Banks, Concordia Parish Corr Facility Phase II, re: 45 Order on Motion for
Extension of Time to File Response/Reply returned by U S Postal Svc marked: REFUSED. (Davis, C) (Entered: 09/28/2004)

09/29/2004

MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Leroy Bacchus, Eric Bell, Etowah County Det Ctr, re: 45 Order on Motion for Extension of
Time to File Response/Reply returned by U S Postal Svc marked: not here. (McDaniel, C) (Entered: 09/29/2004)

09/30/2004

MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Augusto Moreira, Etowah County Det Ctr, re: 45 Order on Motion for Extension of Time
to File Response/Reply returned by U S Postal Svc marked: RTS. (McDaniel, C) (Entered: 09/30/2004)

10/04/2004

MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Curtis Banks, Concordia Parish Corr Facility Phase II, re: Filing Fee Received, 47
Order on Motion to Extend, returned by U S Postal Svc marked: REFUSED. (Davis, C) (Entered: 10/04/2004)

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl?108161082825864-L_186_0-1 (12 of 40)6/25/2007 4:34:41 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana

10/04/2004

MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Ismael Karaca, Concorida Parish Corr Facility Phase II, re: 47 Order on Motion to
Extend, returned by U S Postal Svc marked: REFUSED. (Davis, C) (Entered: 10/04/2004)

10/04/2004

MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Patrick L Brown, REFUSED, re: 47 Order on Motion to Extend, returned by U S Postal Svc marked: REFUSED. (Davis, C) (Entered: 10/04/2004)

10/04/2004

MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Ramit Narang, REFUSED, re: 47 Order on Motion to Extend, returned by U S Postal Svc marked: REFUSED. (Davis, C) (Entered: 10/04/2004)

10/04/2004

MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Franklin Moreno, REFUSED, re: 47 Order on Motion to Extend, returned by U S Postal Svc marked: REFUSED. (Davis, C) (Entered: 10/04/2004)

10/04/2004

MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Gervase Blackwood, REFUSED, re: 47 Order on Motion to Extend, returned by U S Postal Svc marked: REFUSED. (Davis, C) (Entered: 10/04/2004)

10/04/2004

MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Fredo Gustave, REFUSED, re: 47 Order on Motion to Extend, returned by U S Postal Svc marked: REFUSED. (Davis, C) (Entered: 10/04/2004)

10/04/2004

MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Hussein Nasrallah, Etowah County Detention Center, re: 45 Order on Motion for Extension
of Time to File Response/Reply returned by U S Postal Svc marked: ATTEMPTED/NOT KNOWN. (Davis, C) (Entered: 10/05/2004)

10/08/2004

MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Ismet Karaca, Pine Prairie Corr Ctr, re: 45 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, 47 Order on Motion to Extend, returned by U S Postal Svc marked: inmate not found. (McDaniel, C) (Entered: 10/08/2004)

10/08/2004

MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Hussein Nasrallah, Etowah County Det Ctr, re: 47 Order on Motion to Extend, returned by U S Postal Svc marked: RTS. (McDaniel, C) (Entered: 10/08/2004)

10/12/2004

MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Hussein Nasrallah, Etowah County Det Ctr, re: 47 Order on Motion to Extend, returned by U S Postal Svc marked: released. (McDaniel, C) (Entered: 10/14/2004)

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl?108161082825864-L_186_0-1 (13 of 40)6/25/2007 4:34:41 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana

10/12/2004

MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable:, Ismet Karaca at Pine Prairie Corr Ctr, re: 47 Order on Motion to Extend, returned by U S Postal Svc marked: RTS. (McDaniel, C) (Entered: 10/14/2004)

10/15/2004

MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Fredo Gustave, Concordia Par Corr Facility Phase II 26362 Hwy 15 Ferriday 71334, re: 47 Order on Motion to Extend, returned by U S Postal Svc marked:
refused. (Prest, B) (Entered: 10/15/2004)

10/15/2004

MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Ramit Narang, Concordia Par Corr Facility Phase II 26362 Hwy 15 Ferriday 71334, re: 47 Order on Motion to Extend, returned by U S Postal Svc marked:
refused. (Prest, B) (Entered: 10/15/2004)

10/15/2004

MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Ismael Karaca Concordia Par Corr Facility Phase II 26362 Hwy 15 Ferriday 71334, re: 47 Order on
Motion to Extend, returned by U S Postal Svc marked: refused. (Prest, B) (Entered: 10/15/2004)

10/15/2004

MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Patrick L Brown, Concordia Parish Corr Facility Phase II 26362 Hwy 15 Ferriday 71334, re: 47 Order on Motion to Extend, returned by U S Postal Svc marked:
refused. (Prest, B) (Entered: 10/15/2004)

10/15/2004

MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Gervase Blackwood, Franklin Moreno, at Concordia Par Corr Facility Phase II 26362 Hwy 15 Ferriday 71334, re: 47 Order on Motion to Extend, returned by U S
Postal Svc marked: refused. (Prest, B) (Entered: 10/15/2004)

10/15/2004

MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Hussein Nasrallah, Eric Bell, Leroy Bacchus, Etowah Co Detention Ctr 827 Forrest Ave Gadsden AL 35901, re: 47 Order on Motion to Extend, returned by U S
Postal Svc marked: attempted not known. (Prest, B) (Entered: 10/15/2004)

10/22/2004

48 RESPONSE in Opposition by Alexander W Ndaula re 41 Report and Recommendations. (Prest, B) (Entered: 10/25/2004)

11/01/2004

MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Alexander W Ndaula, 454 Pleasant St #3 Worcester, MA 01609, re: 47 Order on
Motion to Extend, returned by U S Postal Svc marked: forwarding order expired. (Prest, B) (Entered: 11/01/2004)

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl?108161082825864-L_186_0-1 (14 of 40)6/25/2007 4:34:41 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana

11/09/2004

49 ORDER REFERRING CASE TO Magistrate Judge for further analysis in light of plaintiffs' memorandum in objection to the report and recommendation. Signed by Judge Dee D Drell on 11/09/04. (Leleux, M) (Entered: 11/09/2004)

11/18/2004

MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Gervase Blackwood, Curtis Banks, Fredo Gustave, Ramit Narang, Franklin Moreno, Concordia Par Corr Facility, re: 49 Order Referring Case to Magistrate
for R&R returned by U S Postal Svc marked: RTS/refused. (McDaniel, C) (Entered: 11/19/2004)

11/22/2004

MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Hussein Nasrallah, Eric Bell, Leroy Bacchus, Etowah County Detention Center, re: 49
Order Referring Case to Magistrate for R&R returned by U S Postal Svc marked: rts/attempted not known. (Davis, C) (Entered: 11/23/2004)

12/01/2004

50 ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Complaint
and recommending that 3 Motion for Class Certification filed by Patrick
L Brown be DENIED AS MOOT; ORDERED that Report and Recommendation Document [#41] is WITHDRAWN; FURTHER RECOMMENDED that complaint filed by Brown, Gustave, Bell, Narang, Moreno, Bacchus, Abimbola, Prince Brown, Nasrallah, Moreira and Banks be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with one or more ordrs of this court, failure to apprise court of current address and to exhaust admin remedis. FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Abimbola's complaint be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of exhaustion. FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Ndaulas complaint be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to exhaust admin remedies. FURTHER RECOMMENDED that action against Concordia Par Sheriffs Dept be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Objections to R&R due by 12/22/2004. Signed by Judge James D Kirk on 11/30/04. (McDaniel, C) (Entered: 12/03/2004)

12/01/2004

ORDER and REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; ORDERING that 41 Report and Recommendations is hereby WITHDRAWN. See Doc
[#50] . Signed by Judge James D Kirk on 11/30/04. (McDaniel, C) (Entered: 12/03/2004)

12/17/2004

52 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Curtis Banks, Concordia Par Corr Facility Phase II, re: 50 Report and
Recommendations,,, returned by U S Postal Svc marked: RTS/NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED/UNABLE TO FORWARD. (Davis, C) (Entered: 12/20/2004)

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl?108161082825864-L_186_0-1 (15 of 40)6/25/2007 4:34:41 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana

12/17/2004

53 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Ramit Narang, Concordia Parish Corr Facility Phase II, re: 50 Report and
Recommendations,,, returned by U S Postal Svc marked: RTS/NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESS/UNABLE TO FORWARD. (Davis, C) (Entered: 12/20/2004)

12/17/2004

54 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Franklin Moreno, Concordia Parish Corr Facility Phase II, re: 50 Report and
Recommendations,,, returned by U S Postal Svc marked: RTS/NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED/UNABLE TO FORWARD. (Davis, C) (Entered: 12/20/2004)

12/17/2004

55 MAIL RETURNED as to Gervase Blackwood as Undeliverable:, Concordia Par Corr Facility Phase II, re: 50 Report and
Recommendations,,, returned by U S Postal Svc marked: RTS/NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED/UNABLE TO FORWARD. (Davis, C) Modified on 12/20/2004 (Davis, C). (Entered: 12/20/2004)

12/17/2004

56 MAIL RETURNED as TO ISMAEL KARACA as Undeliverable:, Concordia Parish Corr Facility Phase II, re: 50 Report and
Recommendations,,, returned by U S Postal Svc marked: RTS/NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED/UNABLE TO FORWARD. (Davis, C) Modified on 12/20/2004 (Davis, C). (Entered: 12/20/2004)

12/17/2004

57 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Fredo Gustave, Concordia Parish Corr Facility Phase II, re: 50 Report and
Recommendations,,, returned by U S Postal Svc marked: RTS/NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED/UNABLE TO FORWARD. (Davis, C) (Entered: 12/20/2004)

12/20/2004

51 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 50 Report and Recommendations by Rafiu Abimbola. (Davis, C) (Entered: 12/20/2004)

12/20/2004

PLAINTIFF REQUESTED A COPY FO THE DOCKET SHEET; CLERK SENT SAME THIS DATE (Davis, C) (Entered: 12/20/2004)

12/20/2004

58 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable:, Pine Prairie Corr Center, re: 50 Report and Recommendations; returned by U S Postal Svc marked: no such p o box/inmate not found. (Davis, C) (Entered: 12/20/2004)

12/22/2004

MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Hussein Nasrallah, Eric Bell, Leroy Bacchus, Etowah County Det Ctr, re: 50 Report and
Recommendations returned by U S Postal Svc marked: not here. (McDaniel, C) (Entered: 12/22/2004)

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl?108161082825864-L_186_0-1 (16 of 40)6/25/2007 4:34:41 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana

12/22/2004

59 ORDER granting 51 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Report and Recommendation. Responses due by 1/11/2005. Signed by Judge James D Kirk on 12/22/04. (Leleux, M) (Entered: 12/22/2004)

12/30/2004

60 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Curtis Banks, Concordia Parish Corr Facility Phase II, re: 59 Order on Motion for
Extension of Time to File Response/Reply returned by U S Postal Svc marked: RTS/REFUSED. (Davis, C) (Entered: 01/03/2005)

12/30/2004

61 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Fredo Gustave, Concordia Parish Corr Facility Phase II, re: 59 Order on Motion for
Extension of Time to File Response/Reply returned by U S Postal Svc marked: RTS/REFUSED. (Davis, C) (Entered: 01/03/2005)

12/30/2004

62 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Ramit Narang, Concordia Parish Corr Facility Phase II, re: 59 Order on Motion for
Extension of Time to File Response/Reply returned by U S Postal Svc marked: RTS/REFUSED. (Davis, C) (Entered: 01/03/2005)

12/30/2004

63 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable:, Concordia Parish Corr Facility Phase II, re: 59 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File
Response/Reply returned by U S Postal Svc marked: RTS/REFUSED. (Davis, C) (Entered: 01/03/2005)

12/30/2004

64 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Franklin Moreno, Concordia Parish Correctional Facility Phase II, re: 59 Order on Motion
for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply returned by U S Postal Svc marked: RTS/REFUSED. (Davis, C) (Entered: 01/04/2005)

12/30/2004

65 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Ismael Karaca, Concordia Parish Corr Facility Phase II, re: 59 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to
File Response/Reply returned by U S Postal Svc marked: RTS/ REFUSED. (Davis, C) (Entered: 01/04/2005)

01/03/2005

66 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 50 Report and Recommendations, by Alexander W Ndaula. (McDaniel, C) (Entered: 01/06/2005)

01/03/2005

67 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Hussein Nasrallah, Eric Bell, Etowah County Det Ctr, re: 59 Order on Motion for
Extension of Time to File Response/Reply returned by U S Postal Svc marked: RTS. (McDaniel, C) (Entered: 01/06/2005)

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl?108161082825864-L_186_0-1 (17 of 40)6/25/2007 4:34:41 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana

01/05/2005

68 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable to Ismet Karaca, Pine Prairie Corr Ctr re: 59 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/
Reply returned by U S Postal Svc marked: RTS. (McDaniel, C) (Entered: 01/06/2005)

01/10/2005

69 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 50 Report and Recommendations by Rafiu Abimbola. (Attachments: # 1 Text of proposed order)(Davis, C) (Entered: 01/11/2005)

01/13/2005

70 ORDER granting 66 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/ Reply as to 50 Report and Recommendations. Response due by 2/7/2005. Signed by Judge James D. Kirk on 01/11/05. (Simpson, J) (Entered: 01/18/2005)

01/14/2005

71 ORDER granting 69 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/ Reply as to 50 Report and Recommendations. Response due by 2/10/2005. Signed by Judge James D. Kirk on 01/13/05. (Simpson, J) (Entered: 01/18/2005)

01/26/2005

72 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable:, Pine Prairie Corr Center, re: 70 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, 71 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply returned by U S Postal Svc marked: attempted/not known/inmate not found. (Davis, C) (Entered: 01/26/2005)

01/26/2005

73 MOTION to Dismiss by Patrick L Brown. (Davis, C) (Entered: 01/26/2005)

01/27/2005

MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Curtis Banks, Gervase Blackwood, Ismael Karaca,Fredo Gustave, Ramit Narang, Franklin Moreno, Concordia Par Det Ctr, re: 70 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, 71 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply returned by U S Postal Svc marked: Return to Sender. (McDaniel, C) (Entered: 01/27/2005)

01/27/2005

MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Hussein Nasrallah, Eric Bell, Leroy Bacchus, Etowah County Det Ctr, re: 70 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, 71 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply returned by U S Postal Svc marked: attempted-not known. (McDaniel, C) (Entered: 01/28/2005)

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl?108161082825864-L_186_0-1 (18 of 40)6/25/2007 4:34:41 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana

01/31/2005

74 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Alexander W Ndaula, 454 Pleasant St., #3, Worcester, MA 01609, re: 50 Report and
Recommendations returned by U S Postal Svc marked: rts/attempted not known. (Davis, C) (Entered: 01/31/2005)

02/01/2005

76 NOTICE to JOIN IN OBJECTION to 50 Report and Recommendations by Augusto Moreira, Rafiu Abimbola. (McDaniel, C) (Entered: 02/03/2005)

02/02/2005

75 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 73 MOTION to Dismiss
filed by Patrick L Brown recommending the motion be GRANTED and Brown's complaint be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Objections to R&R due by 2/23/2005. Signed by Judge James D Kirk on 01/31/05. (Leleux, M) (Entered: 02/02/2005)

02/09/2005

77 OBJECTION to 75 Report and Recommendations by Patrick L Brown. (Davis, C) (Entered: 02/10/2005)

02/09/2005

78 MOTION to Reinstate Case as to Patrick Brown by Patrick L Brown. (Davis, C) (Entered: 02/10/2005)

02/09/2005

79 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Fredo Gustave, Concordia Parish Corr Facility Phase II, re: 75 Report and
Recommendations, returned by U S Postal Svc marked: rts/not deliverable as addressed. (Davis, C) (Entered: 02/10/2005)

02/09/2005

80 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Franklin Moreno, Concordia Parish Corr Facility Phase II, re: 75 Report and
Recommendations, returned by U S Postal Svc marked: rts/not deliverable as addressed. (Davis, C) (Entered: 02/10/2005)

02/09/2005

81 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Ramit Narang, Concordia Parish Correctional Facility Phase II, re: 75 Report and
Recommendations, returned by U S Postal Svc marked: rts/not deliverable as addressed. (Davis, C) (Entered: 02/10/2005)

02/10/2005

82 MOTION for Extension of Time to Amend and supplement 1 Complaint by (signed only by) Alexander W Ndaula. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of manual attachment)(Davis, C) (Entered: 02/14/2005)

02/10/2005

83 MOTION to Certify Class by Alexander W Ndaula. (Davis, C) (Entered: 02/14/2005)

02/10/2005

84 OBJECTION to 50 Report and Recommendations by Alexander W Ndaula. (Davis, C) (Entered: 02/14/2005)

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl?108161082825864-L_186_0-1 (19 of 40)6/25/2007 4:34:41 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana

02/10/2005

85 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Curtis Banks, Concordia Par Corr Facility Phase 2, re: 75 Report and
Recommendations, returned by U S Postal Svc marked: rts/refused. (Davis, C) (Entered: 02/14/2005)

02/11/2005

86 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Leroy Bacchus, Etowah County Detention Center, re: 75 Report and Recommendations,
returned by U S Postal Svc marked: attempted not known/rts. (Davis, C) (Entered: 02/14/2005)

02/11/2005

87 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Hussein Nasrallah, Etowah County Detention Center, re: 75 Report and Recommendations,
returned by U S Postal Svc marked: attempted not known/rts. (Davis, C) (Entered: 02/14/2005)

02/11/2005

88 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 75 Report and Recommendations for 30 day extension by Curtis Banks, Franklin Moreno, Rafiu Abimbola. (Davis, C) (Entered: 02/14/2005)

02/11/2005

89 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Curtis Banks. (Davis, C) (Entered: 02/14/2005)

02/11/2005

NOTICE BY CLERK ON DOC #89 (Motion to proceed ifp) of Change of Address by Curtis Banks; updated to Etowah County Jail on 2/14/05 (Davis, C) (Entered: 02/14/2005)

02/11/2005

90 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Franklin Moreno. (Davis, C) (Entered: 02/14/2005)

02/11/2005

NOTICE BY THE CLERK of Change of Address on doc #90 (Motion to proceed ifp) by Franklin Moreno; address updated to Etowah County Jail 2/15/05 (Davis, C) (Entered: 02/14/2005)

02/15/2005

91 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Eric Bell, Etowah County Det Ctr, re: 75 Report and Recommendations, returned by U S
Postal Svc marked: Return to Sender. (McDaniel, C) (Entered: 02/17/2005)

02/17/2005

92 MOTION to Withdraw 73 MOTION to Dismiss by Patrick L Brown. (McDaniel, C) (Entered: 02/17/2005)

03/03/2005

93 OBJECTION to 75 Report and Recommendations by Alexander W Ndaula. (McDaniel, C) (Entered: 03/03/2005)

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl?108161082825864-L_186_0-1 (20 of 40)6/25/2007 4:34:41 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana

03/16/2005

94 NOTICE TO JOIN IN OBJECTION to 75 Report and Recommendations submitted by Alexander Ndaula, by Franklin Moreno. (McDaniel, C) (Entered: 03/17/2005)

03/16/2005

95 NOTICE TO JOIN IN OBJECTION to 75 Report and Recommendations submitted by Alexander Ndaula, by Augusto Moreira. (McDaniel, C) (Entered: 03/17/2005)

03/16/2005

96 NOTICE TO JOIN IN OBJECTION to 75 Report and Recommendations submitted by Alexander Ndaula, by Rafiu Abimbola. (McDaniel, C) (Entered: 03/17/2005)

09/30/2005

97 JUDGMENT ADOPTING the 50 Report and Recommendations and 75 Report and Recommendations of the magistrate judge. ORDERED the 3 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief filed by Patrick L Brown is DENIED; the 73 Motion to Dismiss filed by Patrick L Brown is DENIED AS MOOT; the 78 Motion to Reinstate Case filed by Patrick L Brown is DENIED AS MOOT; the 82] Motion for Extension of Time to Amend filed by Alexander W Ndaula is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, and remaining plaintiffs are given until 11/15/05 to file any proposed amendment; the 83 Motion to Certify Class filed by Alexander W Ndaula is DENIED; the 88 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response filed by Franklin Moreno, Rafiu Abimbola, Curtis Banks is DENIED AS MOOT; and 92 Motion to Withdraw the Motion to Dismiss filed by Patrick L Brown is GRANTED. FUTHER ORDERED that the claims of Fredo Gustave, Eric Bell, Ramit Narang, Leroy Bacchus and Hussein Nasrallah are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to notify the Court of a change of address and all claims against Concordia Prish Sheriff's Department are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Dee D Drell on 09/30/05. (crt,Leleux, M) (Entered: 09/30/2005)

10/11/2005

98 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Prince C Brown, FDC Oakdale, re: 97 Judgment Adopting Report and Recommendations
returned by U S Postal Svc marked: return to sender. (crt,McDaniel, C) (Entered: 10/12/2005)

10/11/2005

99 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: sent to Ramit Narang, Concordia Par Corr Facility, re: 97 Judgment Adopting Report and
Recommendations, returned by U S Postal Svc marked: return to sender. (crt,McDaniel, C) (Entered: 10/12/2005)

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl?108161082825864-L_186_0-1 (21 of 40)6/25/2007 4:34:41 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana

10/11/2005

100 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Franklin Moreno, Concordia Parish Corr Facility, re: 97 Judgment Adopting Report and
Recommendations, returned by U S Postal Svc marked: return to sender. (crt,McDaniel, C) (Entered: 10/12/2005)

10/11/2005

101 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable to Ismael Karaca: Concordia Par Corr Facility, re: 97 Judgment Adopting Report and Recommendations,
returned by U S Postal Svc marked: return to sender. (crt,McDaniel, C) (Entered: 10/12/2005)

10/11/2005

102 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable to Fredo Gustave: return to sender, re: 97 Judgment Adopting Report and Recommendations,
returned by U S Postal Svc marked: return to sender. (crt,McDaniel, C) (Entered: 10/12/2005)

10/11/2005

103 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Curtis Banks, Concordia Par Corr Facility, re: 97 Judgment Adopting Report and
Recommendations, returned by U S Postal Svc marked: return to sender. (crt,McDaniel, C) (Entered: 10/12/2005)

10/11/2005

104 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Gervase Blackwood at Concordia Par Corr Facility re: 97 Judgment Adopting Report and
Recommendations returned by U S Postal Svc marked: return to sender. (crt,McDaniel, C) (Entered: 10/12/2005)

10/14/2005

105 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Hussein Nasrallah, Etowah County Detention center, 827 Forrest Ave, Gadsden, AL 35901, re: 97
Judgment Adopting Report and Recommendations, returned by U S Postal Svc marked: Released 8/10/04. (crt,Mitchell, S) (Entered: 10/14/2005)

10/14/2005

106 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Leroy Bacchus, Etowah County Detention Center, 827 Forrest Ave, Gadsden AL 35901, re: 97
Judgment Adopting Report & Recommendations, returned by U S Postal Svc marked: Released 9/2/04. (crt,Mitchell, S) (Entered: 10/14/2005)

10/14/2005

107 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Eric Bell, Etowah County Detention Center, 827 Forrest Ave, Gadsden, AL 35901 re: 97
Judgment Adopting Report and Recommendations, returned by U S Postal Svc marked: Released 6/21/04. (crt,Mitchell, S) (Entered: 10/14/2005)

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl?108161082825864-L_186_0-1 (22 of 40)6/25/2007 4:34:41 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana

10/17/2005

108 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Ismet Karaca, Pine Prairie Corr Center, re: 97 Judgment Adopting Report and Recommendations;
returned by U S Postal Svc marked: attempted/not known/inmate not found. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 10/17/2005)

11/28/2005

NOTICE of update/Change of Address done by the docket clerk for Curtis Banks and Franklin Moreno to Etowah County Detention Center; on 2/11/05, clerk docketed in the record that the address had been updated to Etowah County Detention Center, (see notation on page #2 of documents 89 & 90 of "address updated on 2/14/05" with an arrow pointing to the address); clerk sent out doc #97 to these two plaintiffs at the updated address of Etowah County Detention Center this date per instruction of chambers (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 11/28/2005)

11/28/2005

REMARK: CLERK MANUALLY noticed doc #97, to Curtis Banks and Franklin Moreno at Etowah County Detention Center this date (crt, Davis, C) (Entered: 11/28/2005)

01/19/2006

109 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Complaint
recommending that complaints of Patrick Brown, Franklin Moreno, Rafiu Abimbola, Prince Brown, Augusto Moreira, Alexander Ndaula and Curtis Banks be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as MOOT and for failing to state claims for which relief may be granted; restating Report and Recommendation of 7/26/04 recommending dismissal of all claims against all remaining defendants. Objections to R&R due by 2/8/2006. Signed by Judge James D Kirk on 1/19/06. (crt,McDaniel, C) (Entered: 01/20/2006)

01/30/2006

110 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Prince C Brown, FDC/Oakdale, re: 109 Report and Recommendations; returned by U S
Postal Svc marked: RTS/GONE/REFUSED (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 01/30/2006)

01/31/2006

111 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: to Fredo Gustave, Concordia Par Corr Facility Phase II, re: 109 Report and Recommendations, returned
by U S Postal Svc marked: return to sender. (crt,McDaniel, C) (Entered: 02/01/2006)

01/31/2006

112 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: as to Ramit Narang at Concordia Parish Corr Facility Phase II, re: 109 Report and Recommendations,
returned by U S Postal Svc marked: return to sender. (crt,McDaniel, C) (Entered: 02/01/2006)

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl?108161082825864-L_186_0-1 (23 of 40)6/25/2007 4:34:41 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana

01/31/2006

113 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: as to Ismael Karaco at Concordia Parish Corr Facility Phase II, re: 109 Report and Recommendations,
returned by U S Postal Svc marked: return to sender. (crt,McDaniel, C) (Entered: 02/01/2006)

01/31/2006

114 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: as to Gervase Blackwood at Concordia Parish Corr Facility Phase II, re: 109 Report and
Recommendations, returned by U S Postal Svc marked: return to sender. (crt,McDaniel, C) (Entered: 02/01/2006)

02/02/2006

115 MAIL RETURNED for Ismet Karaca as Undeliverable:, Pine Prairie Corr Center, re: 109 Report and Recommendations; returned by U S
Postal Svc marked: refused/ inmate not found (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 02/06/2006)

02/06/2006

116 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 109 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Complaint by Augusto Moreira, Curtis Banks, Franklin Moreno, Rafiu Abimbola. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 02/06/2006)

02/06/2006

118 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: as to Leroy Bacchus at Etowah County Det Ctr, re: 109 Report and Recommendations, returned by U S
Postal Svc marked: return to sender. (crt,McDaniel, C) (Entered: 02/09/2006)

02/06/2006

119 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: as to Eric Bell at Etowah County Det Ctr, re: 109 Report and Recommendations, returned by U S Postal Svc marked: return to sender. (crt,McDaniel, C) (Entered: 02/09/2006)

02/07/2006

117 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: as to Hussein Nasrallah at Etowah County Det Ctr, re: 109 Report and Recommendations, returned
by U S Postal Svc marked: return to sender. (crt,McDaniel, C) (Entered: 02/09/2006)

02/10/2006

120 ORDER granting 116 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/ Reply re 109 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Objections to R&R due by 3/3/2006. Signed by Judge Dee D Drell on 2/9/06. (crt, McDaniel, C) (Entered: 02/10/2006)

02/16/2006

121 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Prince C Brown, FDC Oakdale, re: 120 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File
Response/Reply returned by U S Postal Svc marked: gone. (crt, McDaniel, C) (Entered: 02/17/2006)

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl?108161082825864-L_186_0-1 (24 of 40)6/25/2007 4:34:41 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana

02/17/2006

122 MAIL RETURNED (DUPLICATE) as Undeliverable: on Gervase Blackwood, Concordia Parish Corr Facility Phase II, re: 120 Order on
Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply returned by U S Postal Svc marked: rts/not deliverable as addressed/unable to forward. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 02/21/2006)

02/17/2006

123 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable:, Concordia Parish Corr Facility Phase II, re: 120 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File
Response/Reply returned by U S Postal Svc marked: rts/not deliverable as addressed/unable to forward. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 02/21/2006)

02/17/2006

124 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Ramit Narang Concordia Parish Corr Facility Phase II, re: 120 Order on Motion for Extension of Time
to File Response/Reply returned by U S Postal Svc marked: rts/not deliverable as addressed/unable to forward. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 02/21/2006)

02/17/2006

125 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable:on Ismael Karaca, Concordia Parish Corr Facility Phase II, re: 120 Order on Motion for Extension of
Time to File Response/Reply returned by U S Postal Svc marked: rts/ not deliverable as addressed/unable to forward. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 02/21/2006)

02/17/2006

126 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable:, Fredo Gustave, Concordia Parish Corr Facility Phase II, re: 120 Order on Motion for Extension of
Time to File Response/Reply returned by U S Postal Svc marked: rts/ not deliverable as addressed/unable to forward. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 02/21/2006)

02/21/2006

127 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Hussein Nasrallah, Etowah County Detention Center, re: 120 Order on Motion for Extension of
Time to File Response/Reply returned by U S Postal Svc marked: rts/ attempted not known. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 02/22/2006)

02/21/2006

128 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable:, Eric Bell, Etowah County Detention Center, re: 120 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to
File Response/Reply returned by U S Postal Svc marked: rts/attempted not known. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 02/22/2006)

02/21/2006

129 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable:, Leroy Bacchus, Etowah County Detention Center, re: 120 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to
File Response/Reply returned by U S Postal Svc marked: rts/attempted not known (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 02/22/2006)

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl?108161082825864-L_186_0-1 (25 of 40)6/25/2007 4:34:41 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana

02/21/2006

130 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable:, Fredo Gustave, re: 120 Order on
Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply returned by U S Postal Svc marked: rts/undeliverable as addressed/unable to forward. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 02/22/2006)

02/21/2006

131 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable:, Gervase Blackwood, Concordia Parish Corr Facility Phase II, re: 120 Order on Motion for Extension of
Time to File Response/Reply returned by U S Postal Svc marked: rts/ not deliverable as addressed/unable to forward. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 02/22/2006)

02/21/2006

132 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable:, Ramit Narang, Concordia Parish Correctional Facility Phase II, re: 120 Order on Motion for Extension of
Time to File Response/Reply returned by U S Postal Svc marked: not deliverable as addressed/unable to forward/rts. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 02/22/2006)

02/21/2006

133 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable:, Ismael Karaca, re: 120 Order on
Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply returned by U S Postal Svc marked: rts/not deliverable as addressed/unable to forward. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 02/22/2006)

02/24/2006

134 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Prince C Brown, FDC/Oakdale, re: 120 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File
Response/Reply returned by U S Postal Svc marked: rts/deported. (crt, Davis, C) (Entered: 02/28/2006)

02/27/2006

135 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Leroy Bacchus, re: 120 Order on
Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply returned by U S Postal Svc marked: rts/attempted not known. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 02/28/2006)

02/27/2006

136 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Eric Bell, Etowah County Detention Center, re: 120 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to
File Response/Reply returned by U S Postal Svc marked: rts/attempted not known. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 02/28/2006)

02/27/2006

137 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Hussein Nasrallah, Etowah County Detention Center, re: 120 Order on Motion for Extension of
Time to File Response/Reply returned by U S Postal Svc marked: rts/ attempted/not known. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 02/28/2006)

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl?108161082825864-L_186_0-1 (26 of 40)6/25/2007 4:34:41 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana

03/02/2006

138 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Ismet Karaca at Pine Prairie Corr Ctr, re: 120 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/
Reply returned by U S Postal Svc marked: inmate not found. (crt, McDaniel, C) (Entered: 03/02/2006)

03/03/2006

139 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable:, Ismet Karaca at Pine Prairie Corr Ctr, re: 120 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File
Response/Reply returned by U S Postal Svc marked: return to sender. (crt,McDaniel, C) (Entered: 03/03/2006)

03/06/2006

140 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 109 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Complaint by Augusto Moreira, Curtis Banks, Franklin Moreno, Rafiu Abimbola. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 03/07/2006)

03/09/2006

ORDER granting 140 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/ Reply re 109 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Complaint, 140 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 109 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Complaint. 20 additional days. Signed by Judge James D Kirk on 03/09/06. (jud,Kirk, James) (Entered: 03/09/2006)

03/16/2006

141 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable:, Ismet Karaca at Pine Prairie Corr Ctr, re: Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/ Reply, returned by U S Postal Svc marked: inmate not found. (crt, McDaniel, C) (Entered: 03/17/2006)

03/16/2006

142 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Prince C Brown, FDC Oakdale, re: Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, returned by U S Postal Svc marked: gone. (crt, McDaniel, C) (Entered: 03/17/2006)

03/20/2006

143 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Franklin Moreno, Etowah County Detention Center, re: Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, returned by U S Postal Svc marked: rts/ attempted not known. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 03/21/2006)

03/20/2006

144 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Augusto Moreira at Etowah County Detention Center re: Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, returned by U S Postal Svc marked: rts/ attempted not known. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 03/21/2006)

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl?108161082825864-L_186_0-1 (27 of 40)6/25/2007 4:34:41 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana

03/20/2006

145 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Leroy Baccus, Etowah County Detention Center, re: Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, returned by U S Postal Svc marked: rts/attempted not known. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 03/21/2006)

03/20/2006

146 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Hussein Nasrallah,Etowah County Detention Center re: Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, returned by U S Postal Svc marked: rts/attempted not known. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 03/21/2006)

03/20/2006

147 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Eric Bell, Etowh County Detention Center, re: Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, returned by U S Postal Svc marked: rts/attempted not known. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 03/21/2006)

03/21/2006

148 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Fredo Gustave, Concordia Parish Corr Facility Phase II, re: Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, returned by U S Postal Svc marked: refused. (crt, Davis, C) (Entered: 03/21/2006)

03/21/2006

149 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable:Gervase Blackwood, Concordia Par Corr Facility Phase II, re: Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, returned by U S Postal Svc marked: refused/rts. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 03/21/2006)

03/21/2006

150 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Ramit Narang, Concordia Par Corr Facility Phase II, re: Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, returned by U S Postal Svc marked: refused/rts. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 03/21/2006)

03/23/2006

151 NOTICE of Change of Address by Augusto Moreira (crt,McDaniel, C) (Entered: 03/24/2006)

03/27/2006

152 OBJECTION to 109 Report and Recommendations by Curtis Banks, Rafiu Abimbola. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits ; # 2 Exhibits ; # 3 Exhibits)(crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 03/27/2006)

06/06/2006

153 ORDER all of plaintiff Rafiu Abimbola's claims pending subsequent to the Judgment dated 6/6/06 are referred to the Mag Judge James D Kirk for service of process and other future proceedings Signed by Judge Dee D Drell on 6/6/06. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 06/06/2006)

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl?108161082825864-L_186_0-1 (28 of 40)6/25/2007 4:34:41 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana

06/06/2006

154 JUDGMENT ADOPTING in part the 109 Report and
Recommendations of the magistrate judge. All claims made by plantiffs other than Rafiu Abimbola are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. All of Mr Abimbola's claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE except for his claims seeking monetary damages as a result of his alleged violations of his right to religious freedom and his right to the press. Signed by Judge Dee D Drell on 06/06/06. (crt,Leleux, M) (Entered: 06/06/2006)

06/12/2006

155 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable:, Prince Brown, FDC/Oakdale, re: 153 Order returned marked: rts/refused/deported. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 06/12/2006)

06/13/2006

156 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable:Ramit Narang, Concordia Parish Corr Facility Phase II, re: 154 Judgment Adopting Report and
Recommendations, returned marked: rts/refused. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 06/14/2006)

06/13/2006

157 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Fredo Gustave, Concordia Parish Corr Faiclity Phase II, re: 154 Judgment Adopting Report and
Recommendations, returned marked: refused/rts. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 06/14/2006)

06/13/2006

158 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable:, Prince Brown, FDC/Oakdale, re: 154 Judgment Adopting Report and Recommendations, returned marked: rts/deported. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 06/14/2006)

06/13/2006

159 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Isamel Karaca, Concordia Parish Corr Facility Phase II, re: 153 Order returned marked: refused/rts. (crt, Davis, C) (Entered: 06/14/2006)

06/13/2006

160 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable:, Isamel Karaca, Concordia Parish Corr Facility Phase II, re: 154 Judgment Adopting Report and
Recommendations, returned marked: refused/rts. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 06/14/2006)

06/13/2006

161 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable:, Gervase Blackwood, Concordia Parish Corr Facility Phase II, re: 154 Judgment Adopting Report and
Recommendations, returned marked: refused/rts. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 06/14/2006)

06/13/2006

162 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Fredo Gustave, re: 153 Order returned marked: refused/rts. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 06/14/2006)

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl?108161082825864-L_186_0-1 (29 of 40)6/25/2007 4:34:41 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana

06/13/2006

163 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable:, Ramit Narang, Concordia Parish Corr Facility Phase II, re: 153 Order returned marked: refused/rts. (crt, Davis, C) (Entered: 06/14/2006)

06/13/2006

164 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable:, Gervase Blackwood, Concordia Parish Corr Facility Phase II, re: 153 Order returned marked: refused/ rts. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 06/14/2006)

06/15/2006

165 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: to Ismet Karaca at Pine Prairie Corr Ctr, re: 153 Order, 154 Judgment Adopting Report and
Recommendations, returned marked: inmate not found. (Attachments: # (1) Mail Returned - Doc #154) (crt,McDaniel, C) (Entered: 06/16/2006)

06/16/2006

166 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable:, Hussein Nasrallah,Etowah County Detention Center re: 153 Order returned marked: released. (crt, Davis, C) (Entered: 06/19/2006)

06/19/2006

167 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable:, Hussein Nasrallah, Etowah County Detention Center, re: 154 Judgment Adopting Report and
Recommendations, returned marked: attempted/not known. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 06/20/2006)

06/19/2006

168 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable:, Leory Bacchus, Etowah County Detention Center, re: 153 Order returned marked: attempted/not known. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 06/20/2006)

06/19/2006

169 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable:, Franklin Moreno, Etowah County Det Center, re: 154 Judgment Adopting Report and
Recommendations, returned marked: attempted/not known. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 06/20/2006)

06/19/2006

170 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable:, Eric Bell, Etowah County Detention Center, re: 154 Judgment Adopting Report and
Recommendations, returned marked: attempted/not known. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 06/20/2006)

06/19/2006

171 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable:, Franklin Moreno, Etowah County Detention Center, re: 153 Order returned marked: attempted/not known. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 06/20/2006)

06/19/2006

172 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable:, Eric Bell, Etowah County Detention Center, re: 153 Order returned marked: attempted/not known. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 06/20/2006)

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl?108161082825864-L_186_0-1 (30 of 40)6/25/2007 4:34:41 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana

06/19/2006

173 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable:, Leroy Bacchus, Etowah County Detention Center, re: 154 Judgment Adopting Report and
Recommendations, returned marked: attempted/not known. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 06/20/2006)

07/07/2006

174 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Augusto Moreira, FDC/Oakdale, returned marked: doc #153; rts/not deliverable as addressed/unable to forward. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 07/10/2006)

07/07/2006

175 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Augusto Moreira, FDC/Oakdale, returned marked: doc #154, rts/not deliverable as addressed/unable to forward. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 07/10/2006)

08/07/2006

176 MOTION for Reconsideration re 154 Judgment Adopting Report and Recommendations, by Rafiu Abimbola. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 08/07/2006)

08/07/2006

177 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 154 Judgment Adopting Report and Recommendations, by Rafiu Abimbola. FEE STATUS NOT PAID. (crt, Joffrion, B) (Entered: 08/08/2006)

08/08/2006

178 Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 177 Notice of Appeal (crt,Joffrion, B) (Entered: 08/08/2006)

08/08/2006

179 FEE LETTER requesting payment of appeal filing fee sent to Rafiu Abimbola re 177 Notice of Appeal (crt,Joffrion, B) (Entered: 08/08/2006)

08/11/2006

180 JUDGMENT DENYING 176 Motion for Reconsideration re: 154
Judgment Adopting Report and Recommendations. The Court has no jurisdiction over Brown's place or conditions of confinement in Alabama. Signed by Judge Dee D Drell on 08/11/06. (crt,Leleux, M) (Entered: 08/11/2006)

08/14/2006

181 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Ismet Karaca, Pine Prairie Corr Center, re: 179 Fee Letter for Appeal Filing Fee returned marked: inmate not found. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 08/15/2006)

08/14/2006

182 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Ismet Karaca, Pine Prairie Corr Ctr, re: 178 Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to
USCA returned marked: inmate not found. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 08/15/2006)

08/14/2006

183 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Ismet Karaca, Pine Prairie Corr Center, re: 177 Notice of Appeal returned marked: inmate not found. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 08/15/2006)

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl?108161082825864-L_186_0-1 (31 of 40)6/25/2007 4:34:41 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana

08/16/2006

184 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Ramit Narang, 26362 Hwy 15, Ferriday, LA, re: 178 Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket
Sheet to USCA returned marked: Return to Sender. (crt,Joffrion, B) (Entered: 08/17/2006)

08/17/2006

185 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable:Ramit Narang, Leroy Bacchus, Eric Bell,Ismael Karraca Gervase Blackwood, Fredo Gustavo, Prince C Brown, Husein Nasrallah, Franklin Moreno re: 178 Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to USCA, 177 Notice of Appeal, 179 Fee Letter for Appeal Filing Fee returned marked: Refused. (Attachments: # 1 ; # 2 ; # 3 ; # 4 ; # 5 ; # 6 ; # 7 ; # 8 ; # 9 ; # 10 ; # 11 ; # 12 ; # 13 ; # 14 ; # 15 ; # 16 ; # 17 ; # 18 ; # 19 ; # 20 ; # 21 ; # 22 ; # 23 ; # 24) (crt,Joffrion, B) (Entered: 08/18/2006)

08/18/2006

186 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Prince C Brown, FDC/Oakdale, re: 180 Order on Motion for Reconsideration, returned marked: rts/ refused/unable to forward/not here. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 08/21/2006)

08/21/2006

187 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Ismael Karaca, Concordia Parish Corr Faciluty Phase II, re: 180 Order on Motion for Reconsideration,
returned marked: rts/refused/unable to forward. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 08/21/2006)

08/21/2006

188 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Fredo Gustave, Concordia Parish Corr Facility Phase II, re: 180 Order on Motion for Reconsideration,
returned marked: rts/refused/unable to forward. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 08/21/2006)

08/21/2006

189 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Ismet Karaca, Pine Prairie Corr Center, re: 180 Order on Motion for Reconsideration, returned marked:
rts/inmate not found/refused/unable to forward. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 08/21/2006)

08/21/2006

190 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Ramit Narang, Concorida Parish Corr Facility Phase II, re: 180 Order on Motion for Reconsideration,
returned marked: rts/refused/unable to forward. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 08/21/2006)

08/21/2006

191 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Gervase Blackwood, Concorida Parish Corr Facility Phase II, re: 180 Order on Motion for
Reconsideration, returned marked: rts/refused/unable to forward. (crt, Davis, C) (Entered: 08/21/2006)

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl?108161082825864-L_186_0-1 (32 of 40)6/25/2007 4:34:41 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana

08/21/2006

192 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Franklin Moreno, Etwoah County Detention Center, re: 180 Order on Motion for Reconsideration,
returned marked: attempted not known. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 08/21/2006)

08/21/2006

193 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Leroy Bacchus, Etowah County Detention Center, re: 180 Order on Motion for Reconsideration,
returned marked: attempted/not known. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 08/21/2006)

08/21/2006

194 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Hussein Nasraliah, Etowah County Detention Center, re: 180 Order on Motion for Reconsideration,
returned marked: released/attempted not known. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 08/21/2006)

08/21/2006

195 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Curtis Banks, Etowah County Detention Center, re: 180 Order on Motion for Reconsideration, returned marked: released. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 08/21/2006)

08/21/2006

196 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Eric Bell, Etowah County Detention Center, re: 180 Order on Motion for Reconsideration, returned marked: released. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 08/21/2006)

09/05/2006

197 MOTION to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal by Rafiu Abimbola. (Attachments: # 1 Text of proposed order)(crt,Joffrion, B) (Entered: 09/06/2006)

09/06/2006

198 USCA Case Number 06-30876 for 177 Notice of Appeal filed by Rafiu Abimbola,. (crt,Joffrion, B) (Entered: 09/06/2006)

09/07/2006

199 ORDER: It is hereby ordered that petitioner shall submit, within twenty days of the date of this order, an affidavit in support of the motion to proceed in forma pauperis, an inmate account summary for the past six months of incarceration completed by the prison accounts officer, and a completed authorization form authorizing the institution of incarceration to withdraw and forward any required initial partial filing fee and monthly payment to the Clerk of court until the filing fee ins paid in full. Failure to do so may result in dismissal of petitioner?s appeal or other appropriate sanctions, Signed by Judge James D Kirk on 9/7/06. (crt,Joffrion, B) (Entered: 09/07/2006)

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl?108161082825864-L_186_0-1 (33 of 40)6/25/2007 4:34:41 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana

09/15/2006

200 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Gervase Blackwood, Fredo Gustave, Ismael Karaca, Ramit Narang,, 26362 Hwy 15, Ferriday, LA 71335, Prince C Brown P. O. Box 5010 Oakdale, LA 71463 re: 199 Order,, returned marked: Unable to Forward. (Attachments: # 1 ; # 2 ; # 3 ; # 4) (crt,Joffrion, B) (Entered: 09/15/2006)

09/18/2006

201 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Franklin Moreno, 827 Forrest Avenue, Gadsden, AL 35901, re: 199 Order,, returned marked: Attempted not known. (crt,Joffrion, B) (Entered: 09/18/2006)

09/18/2006

202 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable:Ismet Karaca, P O Box 650, Pine Prairie, LA 70576, re: 199 Order,, returned marked: Inmaate Not Found. (crt,Joffrion, B) (Entered: 09/19/2006)

09/21/2006

203 RESPONSE in Opposition by Rafiu Abimbola re 199 Order. (crt, Joffrion, B) (Entered: 09/22/2006)

09/21/2006

204 AFFIDAVIT re 197 MOTION to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal by Rafiu Abimbola. (Attachments: # 1 Text of proposed order)(crt, Joffrion, B) (Entered: 09/22/2006)

09/21/2006

205 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable:Curtis Banks, 827 Forrest Avenue, Gadsden, AL 35901, re: 199 Order,, returned marked: Attempted not known. (crt,Joffrion, B) (Entered: 09/22/2006)

09/21/2006

206 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Eric Bell, 827 Forest Avenue, Gadsen, AL 35901, re: 199 Order,, returned marked: Attempted Not Known. (crt,Joffrion, B) (Entered: 09/22/2006)

09/21/2006

207 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable:Hussein Nasrallah and Leroy Bacchus, 827 Forrest Ave, Gadsden, AL 35901, re: 199 Order,, returned marked: Attempted Not Known. (Attachments: # 1) (crt,Joffrion, B) (Entered: 09/22/2006)

09/25/2006

208 MINUTE ENTRY: Pretrial Conference set for 4/19/2007 03:00 PM before Honorable Dee D Drell. The remaining plaintiff, Rafiu Abimbola, will participate by telephone and needs to make arrangements through his facility to participate and shall advise the Court if there is any difficulty in that regard. Signed by Judge Dee D Drell on 09/22/06. (crt,Leleux, M) (Entered: 09/25/2006)

10/02/2006

212 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable:, Ismael Karaca, re: 208 Minute Entry, returned marked: rts/inmate not found/refused/unable to forward. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 10/04/2006)

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl?108161082825864-L_186_0-1 (34 of 40)6/25/2007 4:34:41 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana

10/02/2006

213 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable:, Fredo Gustave, re: 208 Minute Entry, returned marked: rts/refused/unable to forward. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 10/04/2006)

10/03/2006

209 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Gervase Blackwood re: 208 Minute Entry, returned marked: rts/refused/unable to forward. (crt, Davis, C) Modified on 10/4/2006 (Davis, C). (Entered: 10/04/2006)

10/03/2006

210 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable:, Ismet Karaca, re: 208 Minute Entry, returned marked: rts/refused/unable to forward. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 10/04/2006)

10/03/2006

211 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable:, Ramit Narang, re: 208 Minute Entry, returned marked: rts/refused/unable to forward. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 10/04/2006)

10/03/2006

214 ORDER granting 197 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge James D Kirk on 10/3/06. (crt,Joffrion, B) (Entered: 10/05/2006)

10/04/2006

215 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Eric Bell at Etowah County Det Ctr, re: 208 Minute Entry returned marked: released. (crt,McDaniel, C) (Entered: 10/05/2006)

10/04/2006

216 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Curtis Banks at Etowah County Det Ctr, re: 208 Minute Entry returned marked: released. (crt,McDaniel, C) (Entered: 10/05/2006)

10/04/2006

217 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Leroy Bacchus at Etowah County Det Ctr, re: 208 Minute Entry returned marked: released. (crt, McDaniel, C) (Entered: 10/05/2006)

10/05/2006

218 MOTION to Move Up the Date of Pretrial Conference and to Expedite Adjudication of Complaints by Rafiu Abimbola. (crt,McDaniel, C) (Entered: 10/05/2006)

10/05/2006

219 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: as to Franklin Moreno at Etowah County Det Ctr, re: 208 Minute Entry, returned marked: Released. (crt, McDaniel, C) (Entered: 10/06/2006)

10/05/2006

220 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: as to Hussein Nasrallah at Etowah County Det Ctr, re: 208 Minute Entry, returned marked: released. (crt,McDaniel, C) (Entered: 10/06/2006)

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl?108161082825864-L_186_0-1 (35 of 40)6/25/2007 4:34:41 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana

10/06/2006

221 ORDER denying 218 Motion to Move up the Date of the Pretrial Conference and to Expedite Adjudication of Complaints . Signed by Judge Dee D Drell on 10/6/06. (crt,McDaniel, C) (Entered: 10/06/2006)

10/13/2006

222 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Ismet Karaca, Pine Prairie Corr Center, re: 214 Order on Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis
returned marked: rts/inmate not found. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 10/16/2006)

10/16/2006

224 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: to Augusto Moreira, P O Box 5010 Lake Charles, LA 71463, re: 177 Notice of Appeal returned marked: Unable to Forward. (crt,Joffrion, B) (Entered: 10/17/2006)

10/16/2006

225 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Augusto Moreira, P O Box 5010 Lake Charles, LA 71463, re: 178 Transmission of Notice of Appeal and
Docket Sheet to USCA returned marked: Unable to Forward. (crt, Joffrion, B) (Entered: 10/17/2006)

10/16/2006

226 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable:to Augusto Moreira, P. O. Box 5010 Lake Charles, LA 71463, re: 179 Fee Letter for Appeal Filing Fee
returned marked: Unable to Forward. (crt,Joffrion, B) (Entered: 10/17/2006)

10/16/2006

227 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: to Augusto Moreira, P O Box 5010, Lake Charles, LA 71463, re: 199 Order,, returned marked: Unable to Forward. (crt,Joffrion, B) (Entered: 10/17/2006)

10/16/2006

228 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: As to Augusto Moreira, Ramit Narang, Ismeal Iaraca, Fredo Gustave, Prince Brown, Gervase Blackwood, Curtis Banks, Hussein Nasrallah, Frank Moreno, Eric Bell, Leroy Bacchus returned marked: Unable to Forward. (Attachments: # 1 ; # 2 ; # 3 ; # 4 ; # 5 ; # 6 ; # 7 ; # 8 ; # 9 ; # 10) (crt,Joffrion, B)
(Entered: 10/17/2006)

10/16/2006

230 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Prince C Brown, FDC/Oakdale, re: 208 Minute Entry,, Set Deadlines/Hearings, returned marked: rts/ refused/unable to forward. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 10/17/2006)

10/16/2006

231 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Augusto Moreira, FDC/Oakdale, re: 208 Minute Entry,, Set Deadlines/Hearings, returned marked: rts/not
deliverable as addressed/unable to forward. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 10/17/2006)

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl?108161082825864-L_186_0-1 (36 of 40)6/25/2007 4:34:42 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana

10/16/2006

232 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Augusto Moreira, FDC/Oakdale, re: 180 Order on Motion for Reconsideration, returned marked: rts/not deliverable as addressed. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 10/17/2006)

10/17/2006

223 CERTIFIED AND TRANSMITTED Record on Appeal to US Court of Appeals re 177 Notice of Appeal ( 2 Volumes of Records 0 Containers
of Exhibits 0 Volumes of Transcripts) Record retained in the district clerk's office. Certfied electronic record transmitted this date. (crt, Joffrion, B) (Entered: 10/17/2006)

10/17/2006

229 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable:Gervase Blackwood; Fredo Gustave; Ismael Karaca re: 221 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief returned marked: Unable to Forward. (Attachments: # 1 ; # 2) (crt, Joffrion, B) (Entered: 10/17/2006)

10/18/2006

233 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable:, Prince C Brown P O Box 5010 Oakdale, LA 71463, re: 221 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief
returned marked: Unable to Forward. (crt,Joffrion, B) (Entered: 10/18/2006)

10/19/2006

234 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Ismet Karaca, P O Box 650 Pine Prairie, LA 70576, re: 221 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief
returned marked: Inmate Not Found. (crt,Joffrion, B) (Entered: 10/20/2006)

10/20/2006

235 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Ramit Narang, 26362 Hwy 15, Ferriday, LA 71334, re: 221 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief
returned marked: Unable to Forward. (crt,Joffrion, B) (Entered: 10/20/2006)

10/23/2006

241 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable:, Gervase Blackwood, Ismeal Karaca, Ramit Narang, Fredo Gustave, Augusto Moreira 26362 Hwy, Ferriday, LA 71334 re: 223 Appeal Record Sent to USCA, returned marked: Unable to Forwad. (Attachments: # 1 ; # 2 ; # 3 ; # 4) (crt, Joffrion, B) (Entered: 10/24/2006)

10/24/2006

236 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Leroy Bacchus, Etowah County Detention Center, re: 221 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief returned marked: rts. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 10/24/2006)

10/24/2006

237 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Curtis Banks, Etowah County Detention Center, re: 221 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief returned marked: rts. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 10/24/2006)

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl?108161082825864-L_186_0-1 (37 of 40)6/25/2007 4:34:42 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana

10/24/2006

238 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Eric Bell, Etowah County Detention Center, re: 221 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief returned marked: rts. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 10/24/2006)

10/24/2006

239 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Franklin Moreno, Etowah County Detention Center, re: 221 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief returned marked: rts. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 10/24/2006)

10/24/2006

240 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable:, Etowah County Detention Center, re: 221 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief returned
marked: rts/attempted not known/unable to forward. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 10/24/2006)

10/25/2006

242 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: to Prince Brown, P O Box 5010, Oakdale, LA 71463, re: 223 Appeal Record Sent to USCA, returned marked: Unable to forward. (crt,Joffrion, B) (Entered: 10/26/2006)

10/26/2006

243 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable:, Franklin Moreno at Etowah County Detention Center, re: 223 Appeal Record Sent to USCA,
returned marked: return to sender. (crt,McDaniel, C) (Entered: 10/27/2006)

10/30/2006

244 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Hussein Nasrallah, Curtis Banks, 827 Forrest Avenue, Gadsen, Al 35901, re: 223 Appeal Record Sent to USCA, returned marked: Attempted not known. (Attachments: # 1) (crt, Joffrion, B) (Entered: 10/30/2006)

10/30/2006

245 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Eric Bell, Leroy Bacchus, 827 Forrest Avenue, Gadsen, AL 35901, as to doc 223 returned marked: Released. (Attachments: # 1) (crt,Joffrion, B) (Entered: 10/30/2006)

11/06/2006

246 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Ismet Karaca P O Box 650 Pine Prairie, LA 70576, re: 223 Appeal Record Sent to USCA, returned marked: Inmate Not Found. (crt,Joffrion, B) (Entered: 11/07/2006)

03/21/2007

247 USCA JUDGMENT/MANDATE (certified copy) as to 177 Notice of
Appeal filed by Rafiu Abimbola, that the appeal is DISMISSED for want of prosecution. Appellant failed to timely file appellant's brief. (crt, Lundy, N) (Entered: 03/23/2007)

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl?108161082825864-L_186_0-1 (38 of 40)6/25/2007 4:34:42 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana

04/27/2007

248 JUDGMENT: A review of the record show the only remaining plaintiff was properly notified of the 4/19/07 pretrial conference but he failed to appear. Under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court's inherent power to control its own docket, this matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Dee D Drell on 04/26/07.(crt,Leleux, M) (Entered: 04/27/2007)

05/07/2007

249 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable:, Fredo Gustave, Concordia Parish Corr Facility Phase II, re: 248 Judgment, returned marked: rs/ refused. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 05/08/2007)

05/07/2007

250 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable:, Ramit Narang, Concordia Parish Correctional Facility Phase II, re: 248 Judgment, returned marked: rts/ refused. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 05/08/2007)

05/07/2007

251 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Prince C Brown at FDC Oakdale, re: 248 Judgment, returned marked: rts/refused/unable to forward (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 05/08/2007)

05/07/2007

252 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable:, Ismael Karaca, Concordia Parish Corr Facility Phase II, re: 248 Judgment, returned marked: refused/rts. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 05/08/2007)

05/07/2007

253 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable:, Ismet Karaca, Pine Prairie Corr Ctr, re: 248 Judgment, returned marked: rts/attempted not known/ unable to forward. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 05/08/2007)

05/07/2007

254 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable:, Gervase Blackwood, Concordia Parish Corr Facility Phase II, re: 248 Judgment, returned marked: rts/ refused. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 05/08/2007)

05/09/2007

255 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: to Eric Bell at Etowah County Det Ctr, re: 248 Judgment, returned marked: released. (crt,McDaniel, C) (Entered: 05/09/2007)

05/09/2007

256 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: to Hussein Nasrallah at Etowah County Det Ctr, re: 248 Judgment, returned marked: released. (crt, McDaniel, C) (Entered: 05/09/2007)

05/10/2007

257 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: to Leroy Bacchus at Etowah County Detention Center, re: 248 Judgment, returned marked: released. (crt,McDaniel, C) (Entered: 05/11/2007)

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl?108161082825864-L_186_0-1 (39 of 40)6/25/2007 4:34:42 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana

05/10/2007

258 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Rafiu Abimbola, Federal Detention Ctr Oakdale, re: 248 Judgment, returned marked: return to sender. (crt,McDaniel, C) (Entered: 05/11/2007)

05/11/2007

259 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Rafiu Abimbola, Etowah County Det Ctr, re: 248 Judgment, returned marked: released. (crt,McDaniel, C) (Entered: 05/11/2007)

05/14/2007

260 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Curtis Banks, Etowah County Detention Center, re: 248 Judgment, returned marked: released. (crt, Davis, C) (Entered: 05/15/2007)

05/14/2007

261 MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Franklin Moreno, Etowah County Detention Center, re: 248 Judgment, returned marked: released. (crt,Davis, C) (Entered: 05/15/2007)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

06/25/2007 16:35:05

PACER Login: wu0079

Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

1:04-cv-00759-DDDJDK

Billable Pages: 20

Cost:

1.60

https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl?108161082825864-L_186_0-1 (40 of 40)6/25/2007 4:34:42 PM