Johnson v. Brown et al
Filing
15
Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing complaint. A separate Judgment shall be entered. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on March 25, 2013 (dsl)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
HATTIESBURG DIVISION
JOSEPH L. JOHNSON, # 150899
VERSUS
PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12cv198-KS-MTP
CHIQUITA BROWN, STATE OF
MISSISSIPPI, and RONALD KING
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
BEFORE THE COURT are pro se Plaintiff Joseph L. Johnson’s pleadings. He is
incarcerated with the Mississippi Department of Corrections and brings this action alleging a
failure to move him away from another inmate. The Court has considered and liberally
construed the pleadings. For the reasons set forth below, this case is dismissed.
BACKGROUND
At the time this action was initiated, Johnson was housed at the South Mississippi
Correctional Institution in Leakesville, Mississippi. He alleges that he red-tagged inmate
Fredderick Thompson and was moved away from him. One month later, Johnson was moved
back near Thompson, who threatened Johnson. He alleges that he informed both Defendants
Lieutenant Chiquita Brown and Superintendent Ronald King about the problem the next day.
Johnson also informed them that Thompson had threatened Johnson and wanted to fight him.
Despite this, he alleges the two Defendants refused to move him. He then informed his case
manager about the potential danger, and she moved him immediately.
Johnson then filed this civil action, complaining that Brown, King, and the State of
Mississippi violated his constitutional rights. Subsequently, Johnson was transferred to Walnut
Grove Correctional Facility.
DISCUSSION
The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996, applies to prisoners proceeding in forma
pauperis in this Court. One of the provisions reads, “the court shall dismiss the case at any time
if the court determines that . . . the action . . . –(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a
claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The statute “accords judges not only the
authority to dismiss a claim based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual
power to pierce the veil of the complaint's factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose
factual contentions are clearly baseless.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992). “[I]n an
action proceeding under Section 1915(d), [a federal court] may consider, sua sponte, affirmative
defenses that are apparent from the record even where they have not been addressed or raised.”
Ali v. Higgs, 892 F.2d 438, 440 (5th Cir. 1990). “Significantly, the court is authorized to test the
proceeding for frivolousness or maliciousness even before service of process or before the filing
of the answer.” Id. The Court has permitted Johnson to proceed in forma pauperis in this
action. His Complaint is subject to sua sponte dismissal under Section 1915.
In this case, Johnson seeks damages for a failure to protect him from another inmate. In
order to succeed, Johnson must prove a resulting physical injury. Jones v. Greninger, 188 F.3d
322, 326 (5th Cir. 1999). Despite being given the opportunity to do so, he claims absolutely no
injury, let alone physical injury, as a result of Defendants’ alleged actions. Even if Johnson’s
pleadings could be construed to allege an emotional injury, he is not entitled to compensatory
damages solely for emotional injuries. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e). Thus, this case is dismissed as
frivolous, and this dismissal counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
2
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, for the reasons stated above,
this case should be and is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous. This
dismissal counts as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). A separate final judgment shall
issue pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, this the 25th day of March, 2013.
s/Keith Starrett
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?