Scott v. Louisiana
| Decision Date | 17 April 2015 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-2262 SECTION "N" (2) |
| Parties | JAMAL SCOTT v. STATE OF LOUISIANA ET AL. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
Plaintiff, Jamal Scott, is a prisoner incarcerated in the Jefferson Parish Correctional Center. He filed this complaint pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 naming as defendants the State of Louisiana, the Jefferson Parish Correctional Center, the 24th Judicial District Court for Jefferson Parish, Sheriff's Deputies Jeffrey Reynolds, David Dalton and Miguel Dukes; and Jefferson Parish Sheriff Newell Normand. In subsequent written submissions expanding upon his claims, Scott also named Sheriff's Deputies Sean Carson and Lt. Cook, Judges Patricia Joyce and Michael Mentz, Assistant District Attorney Shawana McCarthy and State-appointed indigent defender Brad Scott as additional persons who allegedly violated his constitutional rights. Record Doc. Nos. 5-7, 13, 14, 31 and 32. Scott alleges that he was improperly arrested on false criminal charges; that after his arrest he was improperly kept in a cell with another inmate who should have been in the medical unit; that $300.00 was stolen from him upon his arrest; and that his criminal proceedings have been mishandled, resulting in violation of his constitutional rights. He seeks "compensation." Record Doc. No. 1 (Complaint at ¶ V, p. 5).
On February 19, 2015, defendant 24th Judicial District Court filed a motion to dismiss. Record Doc. No. 16. Plaintiff filed a written opposition memorandum. Record Doc. No. 31. On March 12, 2015, I conducted a telephone conference in this matter. Participating were plaintiff pro se; David Sanders and Danny Martiny, counsel for defendants. Plaintiff was sworn and testified for all purposes permitted by Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985), and its progeny.
On the date of the conference, Scott testified that he was then incarcerated in the Jefferson Parish Correctional Center as a pretrial detainee. He stated that his trial was scheduled to begin on March 23, 2015, stemming from his arrest on May 13, 2014, on charges including possession of a dangerous controlled substance -- cocaine - and a dangerous weapon, together with resisting arrest. He said that he has been held in the Jefferson Parish jail continuously since the date of his arrest.
Scott confirmed that he asserts three kinds of legal claims in this case: (1) He was improperly housed temporarily in the same cell with another inmate who struck him and should have been housed in the medical unit. (2) One of the defendant sheriff's deputies stole $300.00 from him upon his arrest. (3) He was falsely arrested and charged with the criminal offenses filed against him, and the resulting criminal proceedings have been improperly handled, in violation of his constitutional rights.
As to his claim that he was improperly housed with another inmate who should have been in the medical unit, Scott testified that on August 9, 2014, an inmate named Jeremy Hinsley, who had "enemies on the tier," was placed in the same two-man cell as Scott. Plaintiff stated that Hinsley "really didn't want to be in that cell." He testified that the deputy who escorted Hinsley had to threaten him with a can of mace to get Hinsley in the cell and that Hinsley had a "verbal altercation" with other inmates on that tier.
Scott testified that Hinsley then showed him a colostomy bag that Hinsley was wearing. "From what I know about a colostomy bag . . . that's a disgrace, and you're storing all kinds of disease, and it's disgusting," he said. Scott stated that within about two hours, during roll call, Hinsley punched Scott in the face for "no apparent reason . . . no reason at all . . . by this guy who should have been in the medical unit." Scott stated that Hinsley's punch was totally unexpected and that he and Hinsley had no prior disagreement or dispute. Scott testified that he was later told by a deputy that Hinsley told the deputy after the incident that he had punched Scott because Hinsley wanted to "get off that tier" and away from the other inmates with whom he had exchanged words. Scott said he was not seriously injured by the punch, which resulted in a slight "brushburn."1
Scott testified that after this incident, Hinsley was moved to another cell and permanently separated from Scott, after having been housed in the same cell with Scott for only about two hours. Scott alleged that it was a "disgrace" that he was housed at all with another inmate with a colostomy bag, to "have to use the same toilet, the same faucet . . . It's something I feel like [no] human being should have to be exposed to." Scott acknowledged that nothing happened to him as a result of exposure to the colostomy bag during the two hours he was housed together with Hensley, except that Scott smelled "a foul odor."
As to his claim that one of the deputies stole $300.00 that Scott had with him at the time of his arrest, Scott testified that he believed defendant Deputy Reynolds was the officer who took the money. Scott stated that when he was arrested, he was carrying $327.05, which was taken away from him for inventorying when he was booked at the jail, but after he was moved from the holding cell, he saw that only $27.05 had actually been credited to his prison account. Scott said he noticed that his money was missing when the booking deputy counted it out and showed him only $27.05. "It had to be [Reynolds] or one of the officers," whom he alleged had a personal vendetta against him and took the money, he said. He further stated that none of his criminal case or prison records show any indication that the $300.00 was being held as evidence against him in his criminal case. Scott stated that the missing $300.00 has not shown up as having been deposited in his inmate trust account.
As to his third claim that his arrest was improper, that the criminal charges against him were false, and that his criminal proceedings have been unconstitutionally handled, Scott testified that he was charged with possession of an illegal weapon, a gun, while in possession of a controlled substance. He denied having a gun or cocaine in his possession. He alleged that the detectives violated his rights by falsely making these charges based on the illegally obtained statements of two other persons who falsely implicated him, even though he did not have a gun or cocaine in his possession. He alleged that the setting of his bond and the charges against him were improperly handled, particularly in that he was charged with two separate offenses at two different times, while the amount of his bond was appropriate only as to a single charge. Scott asserted that the illegal use of a weapon charge had since been dismissed, but he still faces trial on the cocaine count and the resisting arrest charge. He alleged that defendant Commissioner Magistrate Joyce had failed at his initial appearance to advise him properly of all charges against him at a single time and that defendant Judge Michael Mentz had violated his rights in subsequent proceedings.
In clarifying what claims he asserts against particular defendants, Scott testified that Reynolds stole his $300.00; that Deputies Reynolds, Dalton, Dukes and Sean Carson all participated in fabricating the criminal charges against him; that three other deputies named in his papers are merely witnesses in the case against whom he makes no claims; that Lt. Cook was responsible for improperly placing the inmate with the colostomy bagin his cell; that the two judges, Magistrate Commissioner Joyce and Judge Mentz, and Assistant District Attorney Shawana McCarthy have violated his constitutional rights in the pending criminal prosecution against him; and that his initially appointed public defender, Brad Scott, has provided him with deficient representation in his criminal case. In summary, Scott stated that the sheriff's deputies had no proper cause or basis to arrest him and that his circumstances have resulted in "painful" emotional distress.
On cross-examination, Scott confirmed that he was in the cell with the other inmate with the colostomy bag for only about two hours. He denied that he was involved in any struggle with Deputy Reynolds when the arrest occurred. He said that he did not actually see Reynolds take his money; he just knows that he had the money in his pocket and that it was missing after Reynolds arrested him. Scott also reiterated that he had no gun in his possession at the time of his arrest, but he conceded that he was carrying a steak knife with a six-inch blade "for his protection" at that time. He alleged that his documents show he was falsely charged with carrying a firearm at the time of his possession of cocaine, not just a dangerous weapon.
A prisoner's pro se complaint for alleged civil rights violations must be screened by the court as soon as practicable after docketing, regardless whether it has also been filed in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a); Martin v. Scott, 156 F.3d 578, 579-80(5th Cir. 1998). Such complaints by prisoners must be dismissed upon review if they are frivolous or fail to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).
"A federal court may dismiss a claim in forma pauperis 'if satisfied that the action is frivolous or malicious.'" Moore v. McDonald, 30 F.3d 616, 620 (5th Cir. 1994) (). A complaint is frivolous "if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact." Davis v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1003, 1005 (5th Cir. 1998); Reeves v. Collins, 27 F.3d 174, 176 (5th Cir. 1994). The law "'accords judges not only the authority to dismiss a claim based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint's factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.'" Macias v. Raul A....
To continue reading
Request your trial