Jelks v. LA D.O.C.
3:13-cv-00090
M.D. La.Sep 18, 2013Background
- Pro se inmate Jelks sues Louisiana D.O.C. officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged constitutional violations stemming from an August 16, 2012 incident.
- Allegations include false disciplinary reporting by Lt. Dereceauz, vulgar harassment, and use of chemical agents while Jelks alleges asthma and medical neglect.
- Inmate claims the incident followed a false flooding accusation by Dereceauz; after the incident, Jelks was subjected to coercive confinement and denied medical evaluation.
- The case focuses on whether Jelks states due process, cruel and unusual punishment, or PREA-related claims against Dereceauz.
- Magistrate Judge recommends granting Dereceauz’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion and dismissing Jelks’ claims against him, with case to proceed against others not at issue here.
- PREA does not create a private right of action, and verbal abuse alone generally does not state a constitutional claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| False disciplinary report and due process claim | Jelks alleges false report violated due process | Procedures adequate; no denial of due process | Dismissal granted; no due process violation shown |
| Verbal abuse as a constitutional claim | Dereceauz's vulgarities constitute a constitutional violation | Verbal abuse alone is not a §1983 violation | Dismissal granted; verbal abuse insufficient |
| PREA claim against Dereceauz | PREA violations occurred | PREA creates no private right of action | Dismissal granted; PREA claim without private right |
Key Cases Cited
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (U.S. Supreme Court 2007) (pro se pleadings are liberalized)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. Supreme Court 2007) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. Supreme Court 2009) (facial plausibility required for claims)
- Collins v. King, 743 F.2d 248 (5th Cir. 1984) (due process in disciplinary proceedings; confidential informants allowed)
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (U.S. Supreme Court 1974) (due process standards for prison disciplinary hearings)
- Stewart v. Thigpen, 730 F.2d 1002 (5th Cir. 1984) (procedural requirements in disciplinary contexts)
- McFadden v. Lucas, 713 F.2d 143 (5th Cir. 1983) (verbal threats not constitutional violation)
- Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028 (2d Cir. 1973) (standard for cruel and unusual punishment by guards)