Opinion
Civil Action 20-00122-BAJ-RLB
03-08-2023
ANDRE JOHNSON #375946 v. HERMAN HOLMES
RULING AND ORDER
BRIAN A. JACKSON JUDGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
Plaintiff, an inmate confined at the Louisiana State Penitentiary (LSP), alleges that on March 22, 2020, Defendant Captain Herman Holmes, a LSP correctional officer, submitted a false disciplinary report against him to cover up an incident of excessive force committed by a LSP co-worker, Colonel Nicholas Sanders, which occurred on the same date. On this basis, Plaintiff alleges unlawful retaliation and various related claims against Defendant Holmes. (Doc. 5).
Colonel Sanders is not named as a Defendant in this action, but is the named Defendant in a separate case alleging excessive force arising from the same incident on March 22, 2020. See Johnson v. Sanders, No. 20-cv-00158-BAJ-SDJ (M.D. La.). Given the common subject matter, the Court will separately issue an order consolidating these two actions for all purposes.
Pursuant to the screening requirements of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A, the Magistrate Judge has now issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 36, the “R&R”), recommending that Plaintiffs following claims be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted: (1) Plaintiffs claim for monetary damages against Defendant Holmes in his official capacity; (2) Plaintiffs claim for compensatory damages; and (3) Plaintiffs claim that the disciplinary proceedings resulting from the March 22 disciplinary report violated his right to due process. (Doc. 36 at p. 8). The R&R further recommends that the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs potential state law claims, to the extent any such claims exist (Plaintiffspro se Amended Complaint does not specify any such claims). (Id.). Plaintiff objects to the R&R. (Doc. 37).
Upon de novo review, and having carefully considered the operative Amended Complaint and related filings, the Court APPROVES the R&R and ADOPTS it as the Court's opinion in this matter. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs following claims against Defendant Holmes be and are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A: (1) Plaintiffs claim for monetary damages against Defendant Holmes in his official capacity; (2) Plaintiffs claim for compensatory damages; and (3) Plaintiffs claim that the disciplinary proceedings resulting from the March 22 disciplinary report violated his right to due process.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs potential state law claims.
As a result of this Order, Plaintiffs only remaining claim for trial against Defendant Holmes is for retaliation, for which Plaintiff may recover nominal and/or punitive damages.