Wallace v. Webster Parish et al

Filing 9

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 1 Complaint filed by Patrick Wallace: IT IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's civil rights complaint be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous. Objections to R&R due by 12/28/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark Hornsby on 12/10/09. (crt,Cassanova, M)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA S H R E V E PO R T DIVISION P A T R IC K WALLACE VERSUS ST EV E RISNER, ET AL. C I V I L ACTION NO. 08-1674-P J U D GE HICKS MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION I n accordance with the standing order of this Court, this matter was referred to the u n d e r s ig n e d Magistrate Judge for review, report and recommendation. S T A T E M E N T OF CLAIM Befo re the Court is a civil rights complaint filed in forma pauperis by pro se plaintiff P a t r ic k Wallace ("Plaintiff"), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This complaint was received a n d filed in this Court on November 6, 2008. Plaintiff is incarcerated at the Bayou Dorcheat De tention Center in Minden, Louisiana, and he complains his civil rights were violated by pris o n officials. He names Warden Steve Risner, Classification Officer Katie Douglas, S h e r i f f Gary Sexton and the Webster Parish Sheriff Department as defendants. P l a i n ti f f claims he was transferred to the Bayou Dorcheat Correctional Center in July 2 0 0 8 . He claims this facility has no law library. He claims he is unable to prepare a defense o r other legal documents. He claims prison officials refuse to give him library request forms. P l a i n ti f f claims that he was working on cases regarding a 1995 conviction for simple burglary and a 1998 conviction for simple burglary when he was denied access to a law lib ra ry. He claims that because he was denied access to a law library, it took the Louisiana F i r s t Judicial District Court one year to correct his sentences in both cases.

A s relief, Plaintiff seeks a transfer to another facility. F o r the following reasons, Plaintiff's civil rights complaint should be dismissed with p r e j u d ic e as frivolous. L A W AND ANALYSIS T h e United States Supreme Court has held that it is for state prison authorities to d e c i d e where a state prisoner is to be incarcerated, and that a prisoner has no right to c h a l le n g e his place of incarceration. See Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 103 S.Ct. 1741, 7 5 L.Ed.2d 813 (1983); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 96 S.Ct. 2532, 49 L.Ed.2d 451 (1976). Under Olim and Meachum, this Court has no authority to order the State to transfer P l a i n ti f f to another prison. Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for a transfer to another facility s h o u l d be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous. C O N C L U S IO N B e c a u s e Plaintiff filed this proceeding in forma pauperis ("IFP"), if this Court finds Pl ain tif f's complaint to be frivolous, it may dismiss the complaint as such at any time, before o r after service of process, and before or after answers have been filed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e); Green v. M cK askle , 788 F.2d 1116, 1119 (5th Cir. 1986); Spears v. McCotter, 766 F . 2 d 179, 181 (5th Cir. 1985). District courts are vested with extremely broad discretion in m a k i n g a determination of whether an IFP proceeding is frivolous and may dismiss a claim a s frivolous if the IFP complaint lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. See Hicks v . Garner, 69 F.3d 22 (5th Cir. 1995); Booker v. Koonce, 2 F.3d 114 (5th Cir. 1993); Neitzke v . Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 109 S.Ct. 1827 (1989). Page 2 of 3

A cc or di ng ly; I T IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's civil rights complaint be DISMISSED W I T H PREJUDICE as frivolous. OBJECTIONS U n d e r the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), parties a g g r i e v ed by this recommendation have fourteen (14) days from service of this Report and R e c o m m e n d a t i o n to file specific, written objections with the Clerk of Court, unless an e x t e n s io n of time is granted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). A party may respond to another party's objection within seven (7) days after being served with a copy thereof. Counsel are d i r e c te d to furnish a courtesy copy of any objections or responses to the District Judge at the t i m e of filing. A party's failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions and r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s set forth above, within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy s h a ll bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking, on appeal, the p r o p o s e d factual findings and legal conclusions that were accepted by the district court and t h a t were not objected to by the aforementioned party. See Douglas v. U.S.A.A., 79 F.3d 141 5 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). THUS DONE AND SIGNED, in chambers, in Shreveport, Louisiana, on this 10th d a y of December, 2009.

Page 3 of 3