Latson v. Johnson

Filing 8

RULING re 7 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Complaint filed by Demetrius Latson. Because this Court must liberally construe Latson's pro se complaint, this matter is REMANDED to Magistrate Judge Hayes to issue an order directing Latson to a mend his complaint in light of the foregoing analysis and to issue a supplemental Report and Recommendation based on the amended complaint. The Court DEFERS issuing a judgment until the supplemental Report and Recommendation is issued. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 5/19/09. (crt,DickersonSld, D)

RECEIVED USOC. WESTERN DISTRICT OF LA.
DAF~o2/~dL_

UMTED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MONROE DIVISION

DEMETRIUS LATSON VERSUS DENNIS V. JOhNSON, WARDEN

CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-1962 JUDGE ROBERT G. JAMES MAG. JUDGE KAREN L. HAYES RULING

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Demetrius Latson's ("Latson") civil rights complaint. Latson alleges that "[m]y legal mail was open[ed] without my p[ermission] by Warden Dennis V. Johnson[. He] open{ed] my legal [maul from DOC without me be[ingj in front of him[] and held my legal mail from Nov 14, 08 until Dec. 2, 08 and answered it himself and it was not for him to answer." [Doc. No. 1, p. 3]. Latson seeks the following relief: "to se[]n[d] me back to Bunkie Detention Center[] and for Warden Dennis V. Johnson to lose his []rank as. .Warden." [Doc. No.
.

l,p.4]. On April 23, 2009, Magisfrate Judge Karen L. Hayes issued a Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 7], recommending that his complaint be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous. Magistrate Judge Hayes characterized Latson's complaint as follows: "[Latson] implies that the defendant interfered with his legal mail; however, upon closer inspection, it appears that he is actually complaining that the Warden intercepted and responded to a grievance directed [by Latson] to the Department of Corrections." [Doc. No. 7, p. 3--4]. Magistrate Judge Hayes reasoned that since "[Latson] has no constitutionally protected right to a prison grievance procedure, the Warden's `interference' with the grievance process did not amount to a violation ofthe Constitution or laws of the United States." [Doc. No. 7, p. 4--5].

To the extent that Latson alleges that the prison grievance process was violated, then the Court agrees that Latson fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted. However, Latson' s allegations are ambiguous and, therefore, do not necessarily preclude First Amendment claims. See Brewer v. Wilkinson, 3 F.3d 816, 820, 825--26 (5th Cir. 1993) ("A prison official's interference with a prisoner's legal mail may violate the prisoner's constitutional right of access to the courts. Additionally, such interference may violate the.prisoner's First Amendment right to free speech--i.e., the right to be free from unjustified governmental interference with communication."); cf Danun v. Cooper, 288 Fed. Appx. 130, 132 (5th Cit. 2008) ("An inmate alleging denial of access to the courts must demonstrate an actual injury stemming from defendants' unconstitutional conduct. In other words, the prisoner must show that his legal position has been prejudiced."); Geiger
i'.

lowers, 404 F.3d 371, 374--75 (5th Cir. 2005) (setting forth limitations on

relief for violation of an inmate's First Amendment rights). Because this Court must liberally construe Latson's
pi~o

se complaint, this matter is

REMANDED to Magistrate Judge Hayes to issue an order directing Latson to amend his complaint in light of the foregoing analysis and to issue a supplemental Report and Recommendation based on the amended complaint. The Court DEFERS issuing ajudgment until the supplemental Report and Recommendation is issued. MONROE, LOUiSIANA, this _____day of May, 2009.

UNITED STA

`TRICT JUDGE

I,