LaVergne v. Cain et al

Filing 5

RULING denying 4 Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint to add Plaintiff. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 15-34. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

BRANDON S. LAVERGNE (#424227)
VERSUS

CIVIL ACTION

N. BURL CAIN, ET AL

NUMBER 15-34-BAJ-SCR

RULING ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT
Before

the

court

is

the

plaintiff’s

Amendment

to

Add

Plaintiff. Record document number 4.
Pro se plaintiff, an inmate at Louisiana State Penitentiary,
Angola, Louisiana, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against Warden N. Burl Cain, Legal Programs Director Trish Foster,
Maj.

Larry

Smith,

Classification

Maj.

Supervisor

Michael
Amber

Vaughn,

Vittirao

supervisor of Investigative Services.

Lt.
and

Cindy
an

Vannoy,

unidentified

Plaintiff alleged that in

early 2014 prison officials placed him on “mail watch.”

Plaintiff

alleged that prison officials delayed posting his mail and have
destroyed some of his personal and legal mail.
Plaintiff
administrative

alleged

that

segregation

prison

pending

officials
an

placed

investigation

him

in

into

to

complaints that he caused unwanted correspondence to be sent to
Jessica Vasseur, his minor daughter’s grandmother.

Plaintiff

alleged that he was issued a disciplinary report accusing him of
purposely circumventing a non-contact order.

Plaintiff alleged

that on September 28, 2014, a disciplinary board found him guilty
of the disciplinary report and he was sentenced to a loss of

telephone privileges for a period of 28 days.

Plaintiff alleged

that pursuant to a posted policy he also lost contact visits and
special visits for a six month period.
Plaintiff
disciplinary

alleged

board

that

but

the

he

appealed

warden

the

failed

decision

of

timely

issue

to

the
a

disciplinary board appeal decision. Plaintiff alleged that when he
filed

an

administrative

disciplinary

board

grievance

appeal

regarding

decision,

Foster

the

untimely

rejected

the

administrative grievance.
Plaintiff alleged that on December 18, 2014, he was advised
that Warden Cain ordered that he be placed on “mail block” which
restricted him from contacting anyone via the United States Postal
Service

except

for

legal

mail

recipients

identified on his visitor’s list.

and

those

persons

Plaintiff alleged that several

posted letters were returned undelivered with a notation that he
was on mail block.
Plaintiff alleged that on December 22, 2014, he was issued a
false disciplinary report accusing him of corresponding with his
son after he was verbally ordered not to contact him.

Plaintiff

alleged that on January 5, 2015, he was found guilty of the
disciplinary report and was sentenced to Camp J. Plaintiff alleged
that as a result, he lost telephone privileges except for legal
calls and one personal call per month.
Plaintiff alleged that on or about January 1, 2015, Maj.
Vaughn removed a photograph of his son from a letter from his
fiancé, Tiffany Gilcrease, without providing him with notice of the
confiscation.

Plaintiff

alleged

that

on

January

12,

2015,

Gilcrease, was contacted by Maj. Vaughn who warned her that she
would be placed on permanent mail block unless she ceased sending
the plaintiff photographs of his children.
On February 6, 2015, the plaintiff amended the complaint1 to
alleged that several letters he submitted for delivery in the month
of January 2015 were not received.

In addition, the plaintiff

alleged that between September 26 and December 22, 2014, he was
denied contact and non-contact visits with his Gilcrease.
Plaintiff is now before the court seeking leave of court to
join Tiffani Gilcrease as a plaintiff and assert claims against the
defendants on her behalf based on allegations that they interfered
with her associational rights.
First, the plaintiff may not represent another party. Coon v.
Ledbetter, 780 F.2d 1158 (5th Cir. 1986)(the right to bring an
action under the civil rights act is personal in nature and may not
be asserted by third parties).

Second, although the plaintiff’s

motion has a place for Gilcrease to sign, stating that she is
asking to be joined as a plaintiff, she did not sign the motion.
Third, in the circumstances of this case, the plaintiff cannot
involuntarily join Gilcrease as a party plaintiff under Rule 19(a),
Fed.R.Civ.P. Plaintiff has not shown that the absence of Gilcrease
as a plaintiff the court will be unable to provide complete relief
to him, nor has the plaintiff shown that as a practical matter her
non-joinder would impair or impede her ability to protect her
interests.

1

Record document number 3.

Accordingly, the plaintiff’s Amendment to Add Plaintiff is
denied.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, February 24, 2015.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE