Payne v. Spoon
| Decision Date | 16 April 2015 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-cv-3456 SECTION P |
| Parties | BLAINE ALAN PAYNE v. JACOB SPOON, ET AL. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana |
Pro se plaintiff Blaine Alan Payne, proceeding in forma pauperis, filed the instant civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 on December 15, 2014. Plaintiff is an inmate incarcerated at the Ouachita Parish Corrections Center (OPCC). He is awaiting trial on charges of simple escape, aggravated escape and probation violation.1 These charges are unrelated to his complaint. Plaintiff initially sued the West Monroe Police Dept. (WMPD), Officer Jacob Spoon, the Wal-Mart of West Monroe, the CEO of Wal-Mart and the District Manager of Wal-Mart claiming false arrest and imprisonment, illegal search and seizure, and excessive force. He amended his complaint to dismiss Officer Spoon and to add Officers Hattaway and Horton and presumably Wal-Mart employee Clay Joslen as defendants. He prays for compensatory damages. This matter has been referred to the undersigned for review, report, and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §636 and the standing orders of the Court. For the following reasons it is recommended that the complaint be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous and for failing to state a claim for which relief may be granted.
In his original complaint [Doc. 1], plaintiff alleged that on some unspecified date he went to the Wal-Mart in West Monroe, Louisiana, in order to return or exchange a lap-top charger. The customer service clerk advised plaintiff that he could not return the item without a receipt since it cost in excess of $50. Plaintiff then asked the clerk "for something to show it was mine" and she provided a Wal-Mart bag. Plaintiff then went to the electronics department and spoke with the manager who advised him to check the boxes on the shelf "to find one that matched." He further advised plaintiff that if he could not find a match on the shelves then he could not purchase the item since there were none elsewhere in stock.
It is unclear what plaintiff did immediately thereafter; however, at some point he was walking past the pharmacy section when he was approached by two West Monroe Police Officers who inquired whether plaintiff was shoplifting. Plaintiff claims he denied the allegation and offered to accompany the officers to the customer service clerk to watch security footage. The officers then "tried to grab" plaintiff and "forcibly lead" him out of the store. Plaintiff resisted and the officers attempted to subdue plaintiff with his Tazer. The officer missed and plaintiff was tackled by store security. His face was slammed to the floor and he sustained a black eye and bruises. He was searched, arrested and booked at the West Monroe Jail. Thereafter the theft charges were dropped. Nevertheless, according to plaintiff he had to bond out after having been in custody for over two months during which time he lost his job and personal property.
Plaintiff was directed to amend his complaint to provide a more detailed factual basis for his suit. On February 26, 2015, he filed an amended complaint. [Doc. 9] According to the amended complaint, Clay Joslen, a Loss Prevention Associate at Wal Mart, advised OfficerHorton of the West Monroe Police Department that he observed plaintiff cut open a package, remove an item, and place it in his front left pants pocket. Officer Horton then approached plaintiff inside the store and asked plaintiff to empty his pockets and put his hands behind his back. Plaintiff refused and Officer Horton and Officer Hattaway forced plaintiff to the ground by the use of physical force and a Tazer. Plaintiff was arrested for possession of drugs, resisting an officer, theft, and destruction of property and remained in custody for 60 days until all the charges were dropped or dismissed.
Plaintiff submitted a copy of Officer Hattaway's initial report. Therein Hattaway alleged that on January 5, 2014, he was dispatched to the Wal-Mart where he met with Clay Joslen, the Loss Prevention Associate who advised that "he observed the suspect, Blaine Payne, cut open a package and place the contents of the package into his front left pants pocket." Thereafter the officers made contact with the suspect and Joslen positively identified plaintiff as the suspect he observed. While Hattaway spoke to Joslen, Horton, believing that plaintiff was armed with a knife, advised plaintiff to turn around so he could be frisked. Plaintiff refused and began to back away from the officer. Horton grabbed plaintiff and plaintiff continued to struggle. Hattaway assisted and attempted to subdue plaintiff with his Tazer. That proved unsuccessful; however, with the assistance of multiple citizens, plaintiff was subdued. A silver canister containing methamphetamine was discovered in plaintiff's pocket. Plaintiff was then transported to the West Monroe Corrections Center. Thereafter Hattaway advised plaintiff of his rights and asked him why he pulled away from Officer Horton. Plaintiff advised that he had recently taken methamphetamine and does not like to be touched. He admitted to possessing methamphetamine and was charged with that offense as well as resisting an officer and transported to OuachitaCorrections Center for booking. Officer Hattaway then reviewed video surveillance in the store and concluded that plaintiff had not committed any theft. Those charges were ultimately dismissed; however, the drug charges and resisting arrest charges are apparently still pending.
Plaintiff is a prisoner who has been permitted to proceed in forma pauperis. As a prisoner seeking redress from an officer or employee of a governmental entity, his 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, his 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 portion 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 relief 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. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A claim lacks an arguable basis in law when it is "based on an indisputably meritless legal theory." Id. at 327. A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted when it fails to plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); accord Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
For plaintiff to state a viable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against any private defendant, such as Wal-Mart or its management or employees, the conduct of the private defendant thatforms the basis of the claimed constitutional deprivation must constitute state action under color of law. Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., Inc., 457 U.S. 922, 924, 928-32, 102 S.Ct. 2744, 73 L.Ed.2d 482 (1982). The determination of whether a private actor can be subjected to constitutional liability is whether "such a close nexus between the State and the challenged action" exists "that seemingly private behavior may be fairly treated as that of the State itself." Brentwood Acad. v. Tennessee Secondary Sch. Athletic Assoc., 531 U.S. 288, 295, 121 S.Ct. 924, 148 L.Ed.2d 807 (2001) (internal quotation omitted). The inquiry into whether private conduct bears a sufficiently close nexus to the state is highly circumstantial and far from precise. Id., 531 U.S. at 295-96, 121 S.Ct. 924 () (citations omitted).
The Fifth Circuit has developed a consistent doctrine applying a nexus-test to determine when a private enterprise may be subject to constitutional liability. See Morris v. Dillard Dept. Stores, Inc., 277 F.3d 743 (5th Cir. 2001); Bartholomew v. Lee, 889 F.2d 62, 63 (5th Cir.1989); Hernandez v. Schwegmann Bros. Giant Supermarkets, Inc., 673 F.2d 771, 772 (5th Cir.1982) (per curiam); White v. Scrivner Corp., 594 F.2d 140, 141 (5th Cir.1979); Duriso v. K-Mart No. 4195 Div. of S.S. Kresge Co., 559 F.2d 1274, 1277 (5th Cir.1977) (per curiam); Smith v. Brookshire Bros., Inc., 519 F.2d 93, 94 (5th Cir.1975) (per curiam).
In Brookshire, customers brought a §1983 civil rights claim after the store manager reported his suspicion of shoplifting to police; the police then detained, fingerprinted, and "booked" the customers. Brookshire, 519 F.2d at 94. The Fifth Circuit held that in order tosucceed with their claim against the private-actors, the plaintiffs had to show that the police and the store managers were acting "in concert; that [the private merchant] and the police had a customary plan whose result was the detention in the present case." Id. The requisite nexus was found in that case and the merchant was deemed a state-actor after the Court concluded that the police and merchant maintained a pre-conceived policy by which shoplifters would be arrested based solely on the complaint of the merchant. See id. at 94-95.
In later cases, the Court refined the doctrine. Now, a merchant is not considered a state-actor unless the conduct on the part of police officer giving rise to the claimed...
To continue reading
Request your trial