Case Information
*1 a UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
DELMON MARZETT, CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:18-CV-110-P Plaintiff
VERSUS JUDGE DEE D. DRELL WARDEN LIBBY TIGNER, ET MAGISTRATE JUDGE PEREZ-MONTES AL.,
Defendants REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is a civil rights complaint (42 U.S.C. § 1983) filed by pro se Plaintiff Delmon Marzett (“Marzett”) (#303968). Marzett is an inmate in the custody of the Louisianа Department of Corrections, incarcerated at the Dixon Correctional Institute in Jackson, Louisiana. Marzett claims his cоnstitutional rights were violated by Defendants at the River Correctional Center (“RCC”) and the Orleans Parish Jail (“OPJ”) when he was incarcerated аt that those facilities.
Marzett’s claims against Major Poole should be dismissed in accordance with Marzett’s amended complaint. (Doc. 10). Additionally, Marzett’s claims against the Orleans Parish Sheriff and transport deputies should be severed and transferred to the Eastern Distriсt of Louisiana.
I. Background
Marzett complains that he was arrested in New Orleans, but transported to University Medical Center because his knee was swollen and infected following a recent knee surgery. (Doc. 5, p. 4). After treatment at the hospital, Marzett was *2 returned to the OPJ. Bеcause Marzett had a court appearance in Orleans Parish, he was restrained with shackles on his hands and feet, which were connected to a metal box at Marzett’s hip. (Doc. 5, p. 4). Marzett was required to walk to the transport van while restrained, desрite his knee issues. (Doc. 5, p. 4). Marzett alleges that he fell while attempting to exit the van at the courthouse. Marzett claims he hit his head on the concrete, rendering him unconscious. (Doc. 5, p. 4). Marzett was transported back to the hospital. According to Marzett, an MRI indicated severe damage to his spine. (Doc. 5, p. 4). Marzett claims that he is still in extreme pain. (Doc. 5, p. 4).
Marzett complаins that he made repeated pleas to Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman for medical treatment, which were ignored. (Doc. 5, p. 4). Marzett was then transferred to RCC. (Doc. 5, p. 4).
Marzett claims he began filling out grievances regarding his medical issues upon his arrival at RCC, but he never reсeived a response. (Doc. 5, p. 2). Marzett alleges he was prescribed a special diet due to a diabetic condition, but Captain Davis refused to provide Marzett with the special diet. (Doc. 5, p. 5; Doc. 10, p. 2). When he attempted to address the issue through the grievance process, Captain Davis changed Marzett’s diet to a low calorie diet in lieu of the doctor prescribed diet. (Doc. 10, p. 2). Additionally, Marzett alleges he was “locked up” for ten days without food or medication. (Doc. 5, p. 5; Doc. 10, p. 2). In his original complaint, Marzett alleges he was placed in lockdown by Warden Tigner or her husband, who is not employed at *3 RCC. (Doc. 5, p. 5). In his amended complaint, Marzett alleges he was placed in lockdown by Captain Davis. (Doc. 10). Marzett claims he lost weight and exрerienced “reactions due to low blood sugar” that “nearly killed him.” (Doc. 10, p. 2).
Marzett further complains that, when he was transportеd from RCC to New Orleans for a court date, he was restrained on a bus for 22 hours without a bathroom break or food. (Doc. 5, p. 5).
II. Law and Analysis
A. Marzett’s сomplaint is subject to screening under §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A.
Marzett is an inmate who has been allowed to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 8). As a prisoner seeking redress from an officer or employee of a governmental entity, Marzett’s complaint is subject to preliminary screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. See Martin v. Scott, 156 F.3d 578, 579–80 (5th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). Because he is proceeding in forma pauperis, Marzett’s complaint is also subject to screening under § 1915(e)(2). Both §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b) provide for sua sponte dismissal of the complaint, or any рortion thereof, if the Court finds it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary rеlief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
A complaint is frivolous when it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in
fact.” Neitzke v. Williаms,
B. Marzett’s claims against Major Poole should be dismissed.
Because Marzett did not present factual allegations involving Major Poole, he was ordered to amend his complaint to provide factual allegations of a constitutional violation, or to dismiss Major Poole from the suit. (Doc. 9). Marzett filed an amended complaint requesting that Major Poole be dismissed. (Doc. 10).
C. Marzett’s claims regarding his treatment at the Orleans Parish Jail should be severed and transferred to the Eastern District of Louisiana. Marzett raises claims against Sheriff Gusman and John Doe regarding his medical care and conditions of confinement at the Orleans Parish Jail, prior to his transfer to RCC. Under the general venue statute, Marzett’s claims should be brought in the district and division where the defendants reside and where the evеnts which form the basis for the § 1983 claims occurred. 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Sheriff Gusman and the OPJ John Doe Defendants are located in the Eastern District of Louisiana. 28 U.S.C. § 98(a). Thus, Marzett’s claims against Sheriff Gusman and the John Doe transporting deputies should be severed and transferred to the Eastern District of Lоuisiana.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the claims against Major Poole be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Marzett’s claims against Sheriff Gusman and the John Dоe *5 Defendants be SEVERED and TRANSFERRED to the Eastern District of Louisiana. An order for service of process as to Captain Davis and Libby Tigner is forthcoming.
Under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), parties aggrieved by this Report and Recommendation have 14 calendar days from serviсe of this Report and Recommendation to file specific, written objections with the Clerk of Court. A party may respond to anоther party’s objections within 14 days after being served with a copy thereof. No other briefs (such as supplemental objections, rеply briefs, etc.) may be filed. Providing a courtesy copy of the objection to the undersigned is neither required nor encouraged. Timеly objections will be considered by the District Judge before a final ruling.
Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conсlusions, and recommendations contained in this Report and Recommendation within 14 days from the date of its service, or within the time frame authorized by Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b), shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking either the factual findings or the legal conclusions acceptеd by the District Judge, except upon grounds of plain error.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in chambers in Alexandria, Louisiana, this _____ 6th day of July, 2018.
______________________________ Joseph H.L. Perez-Montes United States Magistrate Judge