Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-1941-P
05-23-2016
ROY ARLEAN VANNORTICK v. JARED MARSHALL, ET AL.
JUDGE HICKS
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
In accordance with the standing order of this court, this matter was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for review, report and recommendation.
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
Before the court is a civil rights complaint filed in forma pauperis by pro se plaintiff Roy Alrean VanNortrick ("Plaintiff"), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This complaint was received and filed in this court on June 18, 2015. Plaintiff is incarcerated at the Caddo Correctional Center in Shreveport, Louisiana. He names Detective Jared Marshall and Detective James Moore as defendants.
Plaintiff claims that in November of 2013, he was interviewed by Detective Jared Marshall. He claims Detective James Moore was also present at the interview. He claims he does not remember this interview because he is a diabetic and was denied his insulin shots the previous day. He claims Detective Marshall did not care about his health. Plaintiff claims the first day he remembers is November 23, 2013.
Plaintiff claims that in February or March of 2014, Detective Marshall testified in court that he did not think Plaintiff needed medical attention in November of 2013 and began the interview. He claims Detective Marshall was not qualified to make a medical decision.
Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks a jury trial, compensatory damages, and punitive damages.
For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
In Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 (1985), the Court articulated the guidelines to be used in determining what prescriptive period should apply to Section 1983 claims. The Court determined "§ 1983 claims are best characterized as personal injury actions" and the forum state's statute of limitations applicable to such claims should be used. Id. at 280. In Gates v. Spinks, 771 F.2d 916 (5th Cir. 1985), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals phrased the test as: "The state statute governing the general tort remedy for personal injuries should apply to 1983 actions . . ." Gates, 771 F.2d at 919.
The Louisiana Civil Code provides a general prescriptive statute that governs tort actions. The article subjects delictual actions to a liberative prescription of one year. See La. C.C. art. 3492. The Fifth Circuit qualified this prescriptive period, however, when it held that "a section 1983 action accrues and the statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis for the action." Watts v. Graves, 720 F.2d 1416, 1417 (5th Cir. 1983). Finally, prescription on the claim is tolled while the administrative remedy procedure is pending. See Harris v. Hegmann, 198 F.3d 153 (5th Cir. 1999).
Plaintiff claims his civil rights were violated by Defendants in November of 2013. He claims Detective Marshall testified in court regarding the interview in February or March of 2014. Thus, prescription began to run as to these claims in March of 2014 at the very latest. The above entitled and numbered complaint was not signed by Plaintiff until June 17, 2015, and it was not filed by the Clerk of Court until June 18, 2015. Plaintiff's claims are therefore prescribed.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's civil rights complaint should be dismissed as frivolous.
CONCLUSION
Because Plaintiff filed this proceeding in forma pauperis ("IFP"), if this court finds Plaintiff's complaint to be frivolous, it may dismiss the complaint as such at any time, before or after service of process, and before or after answers have been filed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e); Green v. McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1116, 1119 (5th Cir. 1986); Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985). District courts are vested with extremely broad discretion in making a determination of whether an IFP proceeding is frivolous and may dismiss a claim as frivolous if the IFP complaint lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. See Hicks v. Garner, 69 F.3d 22 (5th Cir. 1995); Booker v. Koonce, 2 F.3d 114 (5th Cir. 1993); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989). See also Gartrell v. Gaylor, 981 F.3d 254, 256 (5th Cir. 1993) ("Where it is clear from the face of a complaint filed in forma pauperis that the claims asserted are barred by the applicable statute of limitations, those claims are properly dismissed pursuant to § 1915.")
For the reasons stated above, the court finds that the IFP complaint of Plaintiff lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.
Accordingly;
IT IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's civil rights complaint be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
OBJECTIONS
Under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), parties aggrieved by this recommendation have fourteen (14) days from service of this Report and Recommendation to file specific, written objections with the Clerk of Court, unless an extension of time is granted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). A party may respond to another party's objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Counsel are directed to furnish a courtesy copy of any objections or responses to the District Judge at the time of filing.
A party's failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation set forth above, within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking, on appeal, the proposed factual findings and legal conclusions that were accepted by the district court and that were not objected to by the aforementioned party. See Douglas v. U.S.A.A., 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
THUS DONE AND SIGNED, in chambers, in Shreveport, Louisiana, on this 23rd day of May, 2016.
/s/ _________
Mark L. Hornsby
U.S. Magistrate Judge