Eurings v. Gusman et al
Filing
16
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 11 - IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Henry Eurings's petition against Respondents Sheriff Marlin Gusman, Warden McKnight, Medical Intake Department, Medical Staff, Riverbend Detention Center, and other u nidentified parties be and hereby is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as malicious. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order against Sheriff Gusman and Sheriff Gusman's attorney, Blake Acuri, be and hereby is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment be and hereby is DENIED. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 7/17/2018.(bwn)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
HENRY EURINGS,
Plaintiff
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 18-3336
SHERIFF GUSMAN, ET AL.
Defendants
SECTION: “E” (1)
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Henry Eurings’s pro se action brought pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. 1 Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated, alleges he received inadequate
medical care after he was beaten while in custody. 2 Plaintiff sued Orleans Parish Sheriff
Marlin Gusman, “Medical Intake,” Warden McKnight, the Riverbend Detention Center,
“Medical Staff,” and other unidentified parties. 3 Plaintiff also filed a motion for a temporary
restraining order against Sheriff Gusman and Sheriff Gusman’s attorney, Blake Acuri,
seeking to enjoin them from “commit[ing] mental assaults [and] threats of harassment . . .
[and] provoking[ing] Plaintiff to [commit] disciplinary [infractions in order to] lock
Plaintiff down . . . and rebook Plaintiff.”4 Plaintiff’s complaint and request for injunctive
relief were referred to the United States Magistrate Judge who issued her Report and
Recommendation on July 3, 2018. 5 On July 5, 2018, Plaintiff filed a memorandum in
support of his complaint and a motion for summary judgment, which the Court construes
as an objection to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. 6
R. Doc. 7.
R. Doc. 11.
3 R. Doc. 7.
4 R. Doc. 10.
5 R. Doc. 11.
6 R. Docs. 12, 13.
1
2
1
In her Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge van Meerveld recommended
that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed with prejudice as malicious. 7 Regarding in forma
pauperis Plaintiffs, U. S. Code Title 28 section 1915 provides “the court shall dismiss the
case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action is malicious.” 8 In Bailey v.
Johnson, the Fifth Circuit held that repetitious litigation of virtually identical causes of
action are malicious. 9 Further, a district court has especially broad discretion when
determining when to dismiss an in forma pauperis proceedings. 10
In this case, Plaintiff admits to having filed a previous complaint, but states the
prison destroyed his paperwork from the previous complaint. 11 After detailing the facts and
Plaintiff’s claims, the magistrate judge determined that the suit Plaintiff previously filed
was dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
for failure to prosecute. 12 In this case, Plaintiff adds new defendants, but this does not
change the fact that the allegations in the instant complaint are virtually identical to
Plaintiff’s prior complaint 13 Simply listing new defendants in a complaint that reiterates
claims that were previously dismissed does not cure a finding of maliciousness. 14 The Court
R. Doc. 11.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
9 Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988).
10 Green v. McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1116, 1119 (5th Cir. 1986); see also Van Meter v. Morgan, 518 F.2d 366, 368
(8th Cir. 1975) (holding in forma pauperis complaints that merely repeat previously litigated claims may
be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915).
11 R. Doc. 7.
12 R. Doc. 11 at 2.
13 Id.
14 Bailey, 846 F.2d at 1021 (“Bailey does not deny that his present complaint against Dr. Johnson duplicated
the allegations in his earlier suit; he merely argues that the district court lacked authority to summarily
dismiss a complaint that stated a cause of action. In that respect, Bailey is mistaken because the court's
power of dismissal in IFP cases under section 1915(d) is broader than in other civil cases under the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.” (citing Jones v. Bales, 58 F.R.D. 453, 463–64 (N.D. Ga. 1972), aff'd, 480 F.2d
805 (5th Cir. 1973))). The Fifth Circuit’s opinion in Bailey refers to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) in stating that a
district court may dismiss a claim brought pursuant to § 1915 if the proceeding is frivolous or malicious. Id.
at 1020–21. Since the Fifth Circuit’s holding in Bailey, § 1915 has been amended; however, this amendment
simply moved the discussion of maliciousness from subsection (d) to subsection (e). In its present form, §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) provides: “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid,
7
8
2
concludes that, in this case, the magistrate judge’s finding that the instant suit is malicious
is correct.
Plaintiff also requested injunctive relief. 15 However, there is not a substantial
likelihood that Plaintiff will succeed on the merits of his claim, given that his claim should
be dismissed as malicious. 16 Further, the Fifth Circuit has held that a plaintiff must show
that a substantial threat of harm exists if the injunction is not granted. 17 Even if the instant
claim were not malicious, Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief is unrelated to his lawsuit.
In this case, the alleged violation of Plaintiff’s civil rights has already occurred. Although
unclear in his requests, Plaintiff’s demand for injunctive relief is not related to these prior
incidents. Thus, the magistrate judge correctly found that the request for injunctive relief
should be denied.
The Court, having considered the record, the applicable law, relevant findings, and
the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation finds the magistrate judge’s findings
of fact and conclusions of law are correct and hereby approves the U.S. Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation and adopts it as its opinion in this matter. 18
Accordingly;
CONCLUSION
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Henry Eurings’s petition against Respondents
Sheriff Marlin Gusman, Warden McKnight, Medical Intake Department, Medical Staff,
the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the action or appeal is frivolous or
malicious.”
15
R. Doc. 10.
16 See, e.g., Valley v. Rapides Parish Sch. Bd., 118 F.3d 1047, 1051 (5th Cir. 1997) (holding that a plaintiff
must show that a substantial likelihood exists that he will succeed on the merits of his claim to be entitled
to injunctive relief).
17 Id.
18 R. Doc. 11.
3
Riverbend Detention Center, and other unidentified parties be and hereby is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as malicious. 19
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary
Restraining Order against Sheriff Gusman and Sheriff Gusman’s attorney, Blake Acuri,
be and hereby is DENIED. 20
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment be
and hereby is DENIED. 21
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 17th day of July, 2018.
____________ _____________
SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
R. Doc. 7.
R. Doc. 10.
21 R. Doc. 13. Plaintiff filed his Motion for Summary Judgment after Magistrate Judge Van Meerveld issued
her Report and Recommendation. Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that “a party may
move for summary judgment, identifying each claim or defense . . . on which summary judgment is sought.”
However, Plaintiff fails to identify any claim on which summary judgment is sought. Instead, Plaintiff
merely quotes Rule 56. As a result, the Court DENIES the motion.
19
20
4
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?