Ashford v. Gusman et al
Filing
18
ORDER AND REASONS denying as moot 14 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan on 6/4/12. (ala, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JAMES ASHFORD
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 12-87-SS
MARLIN GUSMAN
ORDER AND REASONS
Plaintiff, James Ashford, a state pretrial detainee, filed this civil action against Orleans Parish
Sheriff Marlin Gusman, Sgt. Ruiz, Officer Taylor, and Officer Connery. In this lawsuit, plaintiff
challenged the conditions of his confinement within the Orleans Parish Prison system. The parties
have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge.1
On March 26, 2012, all of plaintiff’s claims were dismissed except for his claim against
Sheriff Gusman for injunctive relief for the unsanitary conditions of plaintiff’s cell and the jail
showers.2 With respect to that remaining claim, plaintiff testified at a Spears hearing3 that his cell
was polluted with human feces, urine, and mildew as a result of daily plumbing problems which
caused the toilet to overflow. He stated that prison staff members did not clean the cell. He further
1
Rec. Doc. 13.
2
Rec. Doc. 8.
3
See Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985). “[T]he Spears procedure affords the
plaintiff an opportunity to verbalize his complaints, in a manner of communication more comfortable
to many prisoners.” Davis v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1003, 1005-06 (5th Cir. 1998). The United States Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals has observed that a Spears hearing is in the nature of a Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e)
motion for more definite statement. Eason v. Holt, 73 F.3d 600, 602 (5th Cir. 1996). Spears hearing
testimony becomes a part of the total filing by the pro se applicant. Id.
testified that, although the prisoners continually asked for cleaning supplies to do the work
themselves, they were given such supplies very rarely, approximately only once for every thirteen
requests. He stated that the same conditions and problems also existed in the showers. However,
after the Spears hearing, plaintiff was transferred from the Orleans Parish Prison system, and he
currently is incarcerated at the Eastern Louisiana Mental Health System Forensic Unit in Jackson,
Louisiana.4
As noted, only the request for injunctive relief remains.5 Plaintiff’s recent transfer rendered
moot any request for injunctive relief. Herman v. Holiday, 238 F.3d 660, 665 (5th Cir. 2001); see
also Smith v. City of Tupelo, Mississippi, 281 Fed. App’x 279, 282 (5th Cir. 2008); Roper v. Strain,
Civ. Action No. 10-341, 2010 WL 923151, at *3 (E.D. La. Mar. 8, 2010). Therefore, acting
pursuant to its authority under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1),
the Court now dismisses the remaining claim on that basis.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the remaining claim against Sheriff Marlin Gusman for injunctive
relief for the unsanitary conditions of plaintiff’s cell and the jail showers is hereby DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE.
4
Rec. Doc. 11.
5
Because plaintiff suffered no physical injury, the Court dismissed the related claim for
compensatory damages. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e) (“No Federal civil action may be brought by a
prisoner confined in a jail, prison, or other correctional facility, for mental or emotional injury
suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical injury.” ); see also Herman v. Holiday,
238 F.3d 660, 665-66 (5th Cir. 2001).
2
In light of that Order, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant’s motion for summary
judgment, Rec. Doc. 14, is DENIED AS MOOT.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this fourth day of June, 2012.
_______________________________________
SALLY SHUSHAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?