Verret v. Tucker, 2:20-cv-00339

Plaintiff Junius S. Verret, Jr., a pretrial detainee at the Terrebonne Parish Criminal Justice Complex since his December 9, 2019 arrest, filed this pro se §1983 action IFP against Michael Tucker, a bond agent for Cut Rate Bail Bonds.
Verret alleges Tucker "pulled" (revoked) his $4,400 bond for nonpayment without adequate notice or adherence to required procedures and seeks return of the bond amount.
The magistrate judge screened the IFP complaint under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B) and §1915A(b), considering dismissal for frivolousness or failure to state a claim.
The court analyzed whether Tucker acted "under color of state law," a prerequisite for liability under 42 U.S.C. §1983.
Relying on Fifth Circuit precedent that bail bondsmen are not state actors absent law-enforcement assistance or presentation of an arrest warrant, the magistrate recommended dismissal as frivolous and for failure to state a claim.
The magistrate recommended dismissal with prejudice and advised Verret of a 14-day objection period to the report and recommendation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Tucker acted under color of state law for §1983 liability	Verret contends Tucker unlawfully revoked the bond and thereby deprived him of property without proper notice/procedure	Tucker (as a private bondsman) is not a state actor; no allegation of law-enforcement assistance or warrant	Court: No state action alleged; bondsmen are not state actors absent police involvement; §1983 claim fails
Whether the IFP complaint should be dismissed as frivolous / for failure to state a claim	Verret seeks return of $4,400 and argues his constitutional rights were violated	No viable federal claim alleged to overcome screening standards	Court: Dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii) is appropriate; recommended dismissal with prejudice

Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981) (establishes that §1983 requires that the defendant act under color of state law)
Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986) (limits Parratt; negligence alone does not give rise to a §1983 claim)
Landry v. A-Able Bonding, Inc., 75 F.3d 200 (5th Cir. 1996) (bail bondsmen are not state actors absent law-enforcement involvement)
Douglass v. United States Auto. Assoc., 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (procedural rule on consequences of failing to object to a magistrate judge's report)
Booker v. Koonce, 2 F.3d 114 (5th Cir. 1993) (IFP suits may be dismissed as frivolous when claims lack an arguable basis in law or fact)