Shokr v. LeBlanc et al

Filing 8

RULING AND ORDER Adopting 7 Report and Recommendation of the U.S. Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff's federal claims alleged in his Complaint are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as legally frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A. Plaintiff's claims based on infringement of his religious freedom contained within Plaintiff's October 20, 2020 notice (Doc. 6), are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for Plaintiff� 39;s failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Court declines the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's potential state law claims. Denying 3 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order for failure to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and denying as moot 5 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. A judgment will issue separately. Signed by Judge Brian A. Jackson on 1/6/2021. (EDC)

Case 3:20-cv-00488-BAJ-SDJ

Document 8

01/06/21 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SIMON SHOKR (#709157)

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS
JAMES LEBLANC, ET AL.

NO. 20-00488-BAJ-SDJ

RULING AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint (Doc. 1), Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order (Doc. 3), and Motion for Ruling on Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order (Doc. 5). Plaintiff is a state prisoner, and alleges various
constitutional violations arising from prison officials’ purported failure to adequately
protect him from health risks posed by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Plaintiff’s
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order seeks relief in the form of immediate release
from confinement.
Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. (Doc. 4). Pursuant to the screening
requirements of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A, the Magistrate Judge has issued a
Report and Recommendation (Doc. 7) recommending that Plaintiff’s federal claims
stated in the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous; that the Court
decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s potential state law
claims; and that Plaintiff’s request for a temporary restraining order be denied for

Case 3:20-cv-00488-BAJ-SDJ

Document 8

01/06/21 Page 2 of 3

failure to show any likelihood of success on the merits of his claims. 1 Plaintiff does
not object to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.
Having carefully considered Plaintiff’s Complaint, Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order, and related filings, the Court APPROVES the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation and ADOPTS it as the Court’s opinion in this
matter.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s federal claims alleged in his Complaint are
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as legally frivolous and 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 Plaintiff’s claims based on infringement of
his religious freedom contained within Plaintiff’s October 20, 2020 notice (Doc. 6), are
DISMISSED

WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

for

Plaintiff’s

failure

to

exhaust

administrative remedies.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court declines the exercise of
supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s potential state law claims.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order (Doc. 3) is DENIED for failure to show a substantial likelihood of
On October 20, 2020, three months after filing his Complaint and Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order, Plaintiff a filed a one-page notice, which, liberally construed, plausibly
alleges that prison officials have separately discriminated against him based on his religious
beliefs. (Doc. 6). The Magistrate Judge further recommends that any potential claims based
on Plaintiff’s October 20 notice be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies. (Doc. 7 at 13).

1

2

Case 3:20-cv-00488-BAJ-SDJ

Document 8

01/06/21 Page 3 of 3

success on the merits, and that Plaintiff’s Motion for Ruling on Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order (Doc. 5) is DENIED AS MOOT.
A judgment will issue separately.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 6th day of January, 2021

______________________________________
JUDGE BRIAN A. JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

3