Price v. Orleans Parish Sheriff's Office et al

Filing 26

ORDER AND REASONS denying 25 Motion to Continue Spears Hearing. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby on 2/17/2016. (lag)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SAMMY STEVEN PRICE

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 15-5461

ORLEANS PARISH SHERIFF’S OFFICE,
SHERIFF MARLIN GUSMAN, NIOMI JONES
“CITY ATTORNEY,” MUNICIPAL COURT
SEC. C, T.D.C. ACTING WARDEN CAPT.
WASHINGTON, CAPT. RHODES, SERG. TAHO

SECTION “H” (4)

ORDER AND REASONS
The plaintiff, Sammy Steven Price, has filed a Motion to Reschedule a Spears Hearing
(Rec. Doc. No. 25), in which he requests that the Court reset the Spears Hearing scheduled for
January 7, 2016, which was later cancelled. Price alleges that he was released from prison and now
is residing in a rehabilitation facility in Opelousas, Louisiana. He asserts that he is now in a better
position to prosecute this civil action.1 Price has not sought to amend or supplement his complaint
since he has been released from prison.
Price filed the captioned pro se and in forma pauperis complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
while he was a prisoner incarcerated in the Orleans Parish Prison System.2 Under the regular
screening of the case, the Court initially scheduled a hearing pursuant to Spears v. McCotter, 766
F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985) for January 7, 2016.3 Upon learning that Price had been released from
prison, the Court cancelled the Spears Hearing.4

1

Price also requested that he be provided with a copy of his original complaint. The Pro Se Unit in the Clerk
of Court’s Office has provided Price with a copy of that pleading.
2

Rec. Doc. No. 8.

3

Rec. Doc. No. 9.

4

Rec. Doc. No. 20.

The Spears Hearing was promulgated by the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
for the purpose of allowing a prisoner-plaintiff the opportunity to further explain his factual
allegations and for the Court to ascertain the legal basis for the claims asserted. Spears, 766 F.2d
at 181-82. The information received at the hearing is considered to be in the nature of an amended
complaint or a more definite statement under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e) to assist the Court in conducting
its review of the prisoner complaint for frivolousness. Id.; see also, Wilson v. Barrientos, 926 F.2d
480, 482 (5th Cir. 1991). The Spears Hearing procedure was encouraged by the Fifth Circuit as a
“tool in our judicial workshop” to sift through the “mountains” of prisoner-filed suits in an effort
to separate the frivolous from the potentially meritorious complaints. Spears, 766 F.2d at 182.
The Spears Hearing practice was directed to suits being prosecuted by prisoners. Id. Price
is no longer a prisoner subject to the limited resources and confines of a jail facility. As such, this
civil action can proceed through the normal course of review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, § 1915A, 42
U.S.C. § 1915(g), and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as applicable. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Price’s Motion to Reschedule a Spears Hearing (Rec. Doc. No. 25)
is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana this 17th day of February, 2016.

__________________________________________
KAREN WELLS ROBY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2