Source: http://la.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180823_0002050.WLA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-06-06 02:35:45
Document Index: 565422048

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1983', '§ 1915', '§ 1915']

FindACase™ | Coty v. Parish
Coty v. Parish
NORMAN ALLEN COTY #603369, Plaintiff
SHERIFF'S OFFICE RAPIDES PARISH, Defendant
SEC. P
Before the Court is a civil rights complaint (42 U.S.C. § 1983) filed by pro se Plaintiff Norman Allen Coty (#603369) (“Coty”). Coty is a detainee at the Rapides Parish Detention Center III (“RPDC”) in Alexandria, Louisiana. Coty was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 8). Coty complains that Defendants failed to protect him from an attack by other inmates.
Because Coty has not alleged deliberate indifference by the Defendants, his complaint should be dismissed.
Coty alleges he was detained at the RPDC after being arrested. Once placed in the dorm, Coty was attacked by four convicted inmates. Coty was transported to the hospital with serious injuries. Coty seeks monetary damages and a release from incarceration. (Doc. 1).
Coty was ordered to amend his petition to state the names of each person that allegedly violated Coty's constitutional rights; a description of what each Defendant did to violate Coty's rights; the place and dates that each event occurred; and a description of the injury sustained as a result of each alleged violation. Coty was further instructed to explain how each Defendant acted with deliberate indifference and failed to protect him by providing facts indicating whether Defendants had any knowledge that Coty faced a substantial risk of harm by the particular inmates that attacked Coty.
In his amended complaint, Coty identifies the defendants as Lt. Lamone, Cpl. Eldris, and Sgt. Hudson. Coty allegedly told Defendants he “couldn't live at this jail.” (Doc. 10).
A. Coty's complaint is subject to screening under §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A.
Coty is a prisoner who has been allowed to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 8). As a prisoner seeking redress from an officer or employee of a governmental entity, Coty's complaint is subject to preliminary screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. See Martin v. Scott, 156 F.3d 578, 579-80 (5th Cir. 1998) (per curiam); Rosborough v. Mgmt. and Training Corp., 350 F.3d 459, 461 (5th Cir. 2003) (holding that prison management corporations and their employees are state actors under § 1983). Because he is proceeding in forma pauperis, Coty's complaint is also subject to screening under § 1915(e)(2). Both §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b) provide for sua sponte dismissal of the complaint, or any portion thereof, if the Court finds it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
A complaint is frivolous when it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A claim lacks an arguable basis in law when it is “based on an indisputably meritless legal theory.” Id. at 327. A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted when it fails to plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009).
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;B. Coty does not state a failure to ...