Scott v. Turner

Filing 16

RULING and ORDER: Adopting 11 Report and Recommendation of the U.S. Magistrate Judge. ORDERED that this Plaintiffs claims against DefendantsMichael Spangler, Jonathan Criswell, Brian Forster, and Shalanda Wells areDISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim upon which relief maybe granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A. Signed by Judge Brian A. Jackson on 03/10/2020. (ELW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUBT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
BEN HENRY SCOTT CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS
KEITH TURNER, ET AL. NO.: 18-00626-BAJ-EWD

RULING AND ORDER
Before the Court is the United States Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 11) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(l). The Report and
Recommendation addresses pro se Plaintiff Ben Henry Scott's Complaint (Doc. 1)
against Defendants under 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging constitutional violations,
conspiracy, and retaliation. The Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiffs
action be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants Michael Spangler, Jonathan
Criswell, Brian Forster, and Shalanda Wells for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A. (Doc. 11 at p. 12).
The Magistrate Judge further recommended that Plaintiffs claims against Defendant
Keith Turner for monetary damages in his official capacity as well as claims for
conspiracy, cruel and unusual punishment, due process violations and injunctive

relief be dismissed with prejudice.
The Report and Recommendation notified the parties that, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §636(b)(l), they had fourteen days from the date they received the Report and
Recommendation to file written objections to the proposed findings of fact,

conclusions of law, and recommendations therein. Plaintiff timely filed an objection,
and Defendant did not respond.

The Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff failed to plead operative facts for his
conspiracy claim and failed to state a constitutional right that has been violated
regarding the false disciplinary reports. (Doc. 11 at p. 6). The Magistrate Judge also
found that Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment rights were not violated when Plaintiff was
assigned to administrative segregation. As for the retaliation claims, the Magistrate
Judge found that to the extent Plaintiff seeks monetary damages against Defendant
Turner in his official capacity, Plaintiffs claim should be dismissed, and that the
injunctive relief sought is inappropriate.
In his objection, Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge omitted valid
information that would warrant a claim of retaliation. Plaintiff argues that the
details he included in his Complaint that were omitted from the Report and
Recommendation were pertinent to his retaliation claim, such as the fact that he has

never been investigated for selling drugs before the incident and that upon a search
of his property, no items were confiscated. (Doc. 14 at p. 5) Plaintiff further argues

that he properly stated claims for Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment violations and
retaliation because he was secretly disciplined for his protected speech and that
Defendants were acting under color of the Department of Corrections. (Id. at p. 24-

25, 28).
The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge did not err in recommending the
dismissal of Plaintiffs claims. The Court finds that Plaintiff failed to properly plead

a claim for conspiracy. A plaintiff who asserts conspiracy claims under civil rights
statutes, such as 42 U.S.C. § 1983, must plead the operative facts upon which their

claims is based. See Green v. McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1116, 1119 (5th Cir. 1986). Plaintiff
failed to present any facts from which a conspiracy could be logically inferred. The
Court also finds that dismissal is appropriate concerning the prison disciplinary
reports and proceedings. Plaintiff, as an inmate, has no constitutional right regarding

the investigation or favorable resolution of prison disciplinary proceedings, and there
is no due process right inherent within a claim such as this. See Geiger v. Jowers, 404

F.3d 371 (5th Cir. 2007).
The Court further finds that Plaintiff failed- to state an Eighth Amendment
violation for cruel and unusual punishment. An- Eighth Amendment violation occurs
when two elements are met, (1) the condition must be so serious as to deprive

prisoners of the minimal civilized measure of life s necessities, as when it denies the
prisoner some basic human need, and (2) the prison officials responsible for the
deprivation have been deliberately indifferent to inmate health or safety. See
Hermann v. Holiday, 238 F.3d 660,664 f5th Cir. 2001); Harris v. Angelina County,
Texas, 31 F. 716,719 (5th Cir. 1994). Plaintiff failed to allege any facts to indicate that
he has been deprived of any basic human need, and his placement in administrative
segregation does not demonstrate that Plaintiff was deprived oftlie minimal civilized
measure of life s necessity or of any specific basic human need.

Finally, the Court finds that Plaintiffs retaliation claims must dismissed.
Although the Magistrate Judge noted that Plaintiff stated sufficient facts against

Defendant Turner for a retaliation claim. Plaintiff cannot seek monetary damages

against Defendant Turner in his official capacity because § 1983 does not provide a
federal forum for a litigant who seeks monetary damages against either a state or its

officials in their official capacities. See Will v. Michigan, Department of State Police,
491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). As for injunctive relief regarding the retaliation claim, the
nature of Plaintiff s request is inappropriate. Plaintiff requests the Court to charge
Defendants with "malfeasance in- office", require counseling, and enjoin Defendants
from any further retaliatory measures against Plaintiff. The Court cannot charge
Defendants with malfeasance because decisions regarding whether to prosecute lie

within the prosecutor s discretion, and private citizens do not have a constitutional
right to have an individual criminally prosecuted. See Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410
U.S. 614, 619 (1973); United States v, Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114, 124 (1979). The Court
agrees with the Magistrate Judge s finding that requiring Defendants to enroll in
counseling is an abuse of judicial resources and that the Court cannot enjoin

Defendants from taking further retaliatory measures because Plaintiff has failed to
allege any facts indicating that lie has been threatened with further retaliatory
measures.

Having carefully considered the underlying Complaint, tlie instant motion,
and related filings, the Court approves the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation, and hereby adopts its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
recommendation.

IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 11) is ADOPTED as the Court's opinion herein.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Plaintiffs claims against Defendants
Michael Spangler, Jonathan Criswell, Brian Forster, and Shalanda Wells are

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs claims against Defendant Keith
Turner for monetary damages in his official capacity and all claims for conspiracy,
cruel and unusual punishment, due process violations, and injunctive relief are

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

r^.

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this / u day of March, 2020.

A.
JUDGE BRIAN^. JACKSON
UNITED STAT^TDISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA