Sanders v. Suprill et al

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM ORDER: Directing plaintiff to amend complaint. Pro Se Response due by 6/7/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph H L Perez-Montes on 5/8/2018. (crt,Haik, K)

a
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
KENNETH SANDERS,
Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:18-CV-89-P

VERSUS

JUDGE DEE D. DRELL

RAYMOND LABORDE
CORRECTIONAL CENTER,
Defendant

MAGISTRATE JUDGE PEREZ-MONTES

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before the Court is a civil rights complaint (42 U.S.C. § 1983) filed by pro se
Plaintiff Kenneth Sanders (“Sanders”) (#228589).

Sanders is an inmate in the

custody of the Louisiana Department of Corrections, incarcerated at the Raymond
Laborde Correctional Center in Cottonport, Louisiana (“RLCC”). Sanders claims that
his constitutional rights were violated when his medical duty status was disregarded.
I.

Background
Sanders has filed a deficient complaint, a complaint on the Court-approved

form, an amended complaint, and 3 additional letters to the Court containing various
complaints. (Docs. 1, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17). Sanders’s chief complaint is his assignment
to a top bunk in violation of his duty status. However, Sanders also briefly mentions
other grievances with RLCC.
II.

Instructions to Amend
The only Defendant listed on the complaint form is RLCC. (Doc. 10, p. 2).

Sanders lists no additional defendants in the allotted spaces on the complaint form.
(Doc. 10, p. 3). A correctional center such as RLCC is a building, not a “person” subject

to suit under § 1983. See Davis v. St. Charles Parish Correctional Center, No. 10–
98, 2010 WL 890980, at *3 (E.D. La. Mar. 8, 2010); Dorsey v. Nelson Coleman
Correctional, No. 09–7673, 2010 WL 677742, at *2 (E.D. La. Feb. 24, 2010); Joseph v.
Nelson Coleman Correctional Center, No. 09–7670, 2010 WL 55447, at *2 (E.D. La.
Jan. 7, 2010); Castillo v. Blanco, No. 07–215, 2007 WL 2264285, at *4 (E.D. La. Aug.
1, 2007). Thus, Sanders’s suit against RLCC is subject to dismissal.
Sanders should advise the Court whether he wishes to proceed with his suit
against only RLCC, or if he wishes to amend his complaint to name other Defendants.
To the extent that he wishes to amend, Sanders should list:
(1) the name(s) of EACH
constitutional rights;

person

who

allegedly

violated

Sanders’s

(2) a description of what EACH named defendant did to violate Sanders’s
rights;
(3) the place and date(s) that EACH event occurred; and
(4) a description of the injury sustained as a result of EACH alleged violation.
If Sanders does not wish to amend, and wants to proceed with his suit against
only RLCC as indicated in his Complaint (Doc. 10), he should advise the Court
accordingly.
III.

Conclusion
IT IS ORDERED that Sanders file, within 30 days of the filing of this Order,

either: (1) an amended, superseding complaint, not to exceed six pages, providing the

2

information outlined above, or (2) a single page supplemental complaint advising the
Court if Sanders does not want to amend his complaint.
The failure to comply with this Order will result in dismissal being
recommended under Rule 41(b) or 16(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
8th
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in chambers in Alexandria, Louisiana, this ____
day of May, 2018.

______________________________
Joseph H.L. Perez-Montes
United States Magistrate Judge

3