Smith v. Safety & Corrections et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM ORDER: Directing plaintiff to amend complaint. Pro Se Response due by 12/7/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph H L Perez-Montes on 11/7/2016. (crt,Haik, K)

a
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
SANDY SMITH,
Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-CV-1211-P

VERSUS

JUDGE JAMES T. TRIMBLE, JR.

KEITH DEVILLE, ET AL.
Defendants

MAGISTRATE JUDGE PEREZ-MONTES

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before the Court is a civil rights complaint (42 U.S.C. § 1983) filed by pro se
Plaintiff Sandy Smith, Jr. (“Smith”) (#544410). Smith has been granted leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 7). Smith is an inmate in the custody of the
Louisiana Department of Corrections, incarcerated at Winn Correctional Center
(“WCC”) in Winnfield, Louisiana. Smith complains that he was placed in
administrative segregation without due process and was held there in retaliation for
reporting the assault of another inmate. (Doc. 5, p. 3). Smith names as defendants
Warden Keith Deville, Michael Shaw, Mona Heyes, James LeBlanc, Captain Ward,
Lieutenant Curry, Major Coleman, Warden Floyd, Warden Tigner, Major Jordan,
Major McFarland, Major Chapman, Captain Tolbert, Captain Hayes, and Officer
Thomas.
I.

Background
Smith alleges that, on August 1, 2016, he was placed in administrative

segregation for allegedly violating a prison disciplinary rule. (Doc. 5, p. 3). While in
segregation, Smith witnessed several officers use excessive force on another inmate,

resulting in the inmate’s death. (Doc. 5, p. 3). Smith informed a family member about
the inmate’s death and asked the family member to notify law enforcement. (Doc. 5,
p. 3).
Smith alleges that the sheriff arrived at WCC to interview him about the
assault on August 12, 2016, the date Smith was supposed to be released from
segregation. (Doc. 5, p. 3). Thereafter, Smith remained in segregation for three
additional weeks. (Doc. 5, p. 3). Smith contends that the period of segregation was
extended in retaliation for reporting the excessive force incident. (Doc. 5, p. 3).
II.

Law and Analysis
To state a valid § 1983 claim for retaliation, “a prisoner must allege (1) a specific

constitutional right, (2) the defendant’s intent to retaliate against the prisoner for his
or her exercise of that right, (3) a retaliatory adverse act, and (4) causation.” Jones v.
Greninger, 188 F.3d 322, 324-25 (5th Cir. 1999) (citing McDonald v. Stewart, 132 F.3d
225, 231 (5th Cir. 1998)). An inmate must allege more than his personal belief that
he is the victim of retaliation. See Johnson v. Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 299, 310 (5th Cir.
1997) (citation omitted). “The inmate must produce direct evidence of motivation or,
the more probable scenario, ‘allege a chronology of events from which retaliation may
plausibly be inferred.’” Jones, 188 F.3d at 325 (citations omitted).
Smith claims that he was placed in segregation due to an alleged rule violation.
Smith should provide a copy of his disciplinary write-up and documentation showing
its disposition or dismissal.

2

Smith claims that his period in administrative segregation was extended for
three weeks in retaliation for reporting an inmate assault. However, Smith does not
identify which defendants committed the retaliatory act. Smith should amend his
complaint to identify which defendant(s) ordered him to remain in administrative
segregation after his meeting with the sheriff. Smith should provide copies of any
paperwork related to his administrative segregation.
Additionally, Smith should provide factual support for his claim that he was
originally scheduled to be released from segregation on August 12, 2016. If Smith
has no written documentation, he should state how he concluded that he was
supposed to be released on that date.
Finally, Smith should provide a copy of his administrative grievance and any
response he received from Heyes or other WCC officials.
III.

Conclusion

IT IS ORDERED that Smith amend his complaint within thirty (30) days of the
filing of this Order to provide the information outlined above, or dismissal will be
recommended under Rule 41(b) or 16(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in chambers in Alexandria, Louisiana, this 7th day
____
of November, 2016.
____________________________________
Joseph H.L. Perez-Montes
United States Magistrate Judge

3