Boudreaux v. Mississippi Department of Correction et al
Filing
8
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING MDOC with prejudice as frivolous for reasons stated within this Order. The remainder of this case shall proceed. Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 7/9/2018. (JS)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
RUFUS BOUDREAUX, # 207918
PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:18cv153-CWR-FKB
MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, CENTURION OF
MISSISSIPPI, DR. WILLIAM BRAZIER,
and DR. L. SUTTON
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING MDOC
This case is before the Court sua sponte for consideration of dismissal. Pro se Plaintiff
Rufus Boudreaux is incarcerated with the Mississippi Department of Corrections (“MDOC”), and
he brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, challenging the conditions of his confinement.
The Court has considered and liberally construed the pleadings. As set forth below, Defendant
MDOC is dismissed.
BACKGROUND
Boudreaux is currently housed at the Central Mississippi Correctional Facility. Defendant
Doctors William Brazier and L. Sutton are alleged to be doctors at the prison, employed by
Defendant Centurion of Mississippi. Centurion is the medical provider for MDOC.
Boudreaux alleges that he was prescribed the wrong gout medication and was not placed
on a heart monitor, despite having a heart “stimulator.”
(Compl. Ex. C [1-3] at 1).
The
medication allegedly caused his heart stimulator to constantly shock his heart for weeks and to
cause his extremities to swell, to the point where they “almost . . . burst.” (Compl. Ex. B [1-2] at
3). He claims Centurion approved the medication and the “decision . . . on his heart monitor.”
(Resp. at 2). He contends the doctors did not answer his sick call requests for weeks. As a result,
Boudreaux maintains he is confined to a wheelchair.
Boudreaux brings this action under § 1983, asserting claims for cruel and unusual
punishment and equal protection violations. Besides the above doctors and Centurion, he sues
MDOC for compensatory and punitive damages.
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 [28 U.S.C. § 1915, 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 Boudreaux to proceed in forma
pauperis in this action. His Complaint is subject to sua sponte dismissal under § 1915.
Among others, he sues MDOC under §1983. Section 1983 provides:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or
usage, of any State . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United
States . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
2
Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in
equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. . . .
42 U.S.C. § 1983. The State of Mississippi is not amenable to suit under this statute, because “a
State is not a person within the meaning of § 1983.” Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S.
58, 64 (1989). This holding likewise applies to “any governmental entities that are considered
‘arms of the State’ for Eleventh Amendment purposes.” Id. at 70. MDOC is considered an arm
of the State of Mississippi. Miss. Code Ann. § 47-5-1; Scott v. Miss. Dep’t of Corrs., No.
2:05cv2159-KS-JMR, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43683 at *2 (S.D. Miss. June 12, 2006). Therefore,
the claims against MDOC are dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, for the reasons stated above,
the claims against Defendant Mississippi Department of Corrections should be and are hereby
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous. The remainder of this case shall proceed.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, this the 9th day of July, 2018.
s/Carlton W. Reeves
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?