Lucien-Bey v. Myers
1:21-cv-00755
W.D. La.Apr 27, 2021Background
- Pro se prisoner Michael Lucien‑Bey, incarcerated at Raymond Laborde Correctional Center, sued RLCC staff under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking money damages and a preliminary injunction.
- Complaint alleges five instances (Sept–Oct 2020) where named staff stood over the food line in the kitchen without masks.
- Plaintiff asserts defendants’ inconsistent mask use created unsafe conditions and amounted to negligence and constitutional violation.
- Case was subject to preliminary screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because plaintiff is a prisoner suing government employees.
- Magistrate Judge Perez‑Montes recommended dismissal with prejudice, finding the complaint frivolous and failing to state a claim, and denied the request for a preliminary injunction as procedurally and substantively unwarranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preliminary screening and dismissal under §1915A | Lucien‑Bey argues staff noncompliance with masking warrants relief | Defendants (implicitly) not yet served; screening required to test sufficiency | Complaint is frivolous/ fails to state a claim; dismissal recommended under §1915A |
| Preliminary injunction | Requests immediate relief to stop alleged unsafe conditions | Injunction cannot issue without notice to defendants and response | Injunction procedurally improper and unwarranted given recommended dismissal |
| Monetary damages under PLRA §1997e(e) | Seeks damages for emotional/mental harm from exposure risk | No physical injury alleged to satisfy PLRA requirement | Damages barred absent more‑than‑de minimis physical injury; plaintiff alleges none |
| Deliberate indifference re: mask use | Occasional failure to wear masks exposes plaintiff to substantial risk | Isolated/ inconsistent mask nonuse is negligent at most, not deliberate indifference | No plausible claim of deliberate indifference; inconsistent mask use insufficient to state Eighth Amendment claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Martin v. Scott, 156 F.3d 578 (5th Cir. 1998) (prisoner suits subject to screening under §1915A)
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (frivolous standard for pro se complaints)
- Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992) (factual frivolity and ‘‘clearly baseless’’ standard)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading requirements for plausible claims)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (objective risk and subjective deliberate indifference standard)
- Alexander v. Tippah County, Mississippi, 351 F.3d 626 (5th Cir. 2003) (§1997e(e) physical‑injury requirement)
- Alderson v. Concordia Parish Correctional Facility, 848 F.3d 415 (5th Cir. 2017) (negligence differs from deliberate indifference)
- Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423 (1974) (preliminary injunction notice requirement)
- Commerce Park at DFW Freeport v. Mardian Constr. Co., 729 F.2d 334 (5th Cir. 1984) (procedural standards for injunctions)