Donald Jackson v. Lafourche Parish Correctional Center, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA DONALD JACKSON CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NUMBER: 26-223 LAFOURCHE PARISH CORRECTIONAL SECTION: “P”(5) CENTER, ET AL.

PARTIAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on January 29, 2026, correcting his deficient Complaint on February 20, 2026. (Rec. docs. 1, 4). Essentially, Plaintiff complains that he is not receiving adequate medical care at the Lafourche Parish Correctional Center. (Rec. doc. 4 at 5). He maintains that he isI dv.ision impaired and has kidney disease and is “being neglected for medical treatment.” ( ). Plaintiff sues nine Defendants, all of whom have appeared and filed motions to dismiss except for Defendants the Lafourche Parish Government and the Lafourche Parish Correctional Center.

Turning to these two specific Defendants named by Plaintiff, Defendant, the Parish of Lafourche, is a local govMeronnienlgl vb. oDdeyp tt.h aotf Siso ccioanl sSiedrevrse.d to be a “person” within the meaning of Section 1983. , 436 U.S. 658, 694-95 (1978).

However, a governmental body like Lafourche Parish may be held liable under Section 1983 only when theI edx.eCcaurtitoenr vo.f Satnr auinnconstitutional policy or custom proximately causes a plaintiff's injuries. ; Parm v. Shumat, eNo. 09-CV-0015, 2009 WL 3231826 at *2 (E.D. La. Oct. 1, 2009) (quoting , 513 F.3d 135, 142 (5th Cir. 2007)). “‘A plaintiff may not infer a policIyd . merely beCcoallues ev . hBarramzo sr eCsnutlyt.e, dT efxr.om some interaction with a government entity.’” (quoting , 982 F.2d 237, 245 (5th Cir. 1993)). Rather, the plaintiff “ . . . must identify the policy or custom which allegedly caused Id. Murray v. Town of Mansura the deprivation of his constitutionaTl rreigehcets v.”. La. (citing , 76 F. App’x 547, 549 (5th Cir. 2003) and , 74 F. App’x 315, 316 (5th Cir. 2003)). As Plaintiff does not allege that the purported deprivation of his Constitutional rights resulted from a policy or custom, much less identify any such policy or custom, any Section 1983 claim against the Lafourche Parish Government should be dismissed Aaus tfhreivmoelonut sv .a Pnadr .f oorf fTaeirlurereb otnon setate a claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii). , No. 09-CV-4618, 2010 WL 1930943 at *6 (E.D. La. Mar. 19, 2010).

And clearly, the Lafourche Parish Detention Center is an improper Defendant. A dEeatsetenrt ivo.n L aceFnotuerrc hise mPaerr.e Slyh ear bifuf'isl dOifnf.g, not a “person” subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Davis v. St. Charles Pa, rN. oC.o Crirv. . CAtr. .13-5797, 2014 WL 3687239, at *3 (E.D. La. July 23, 2014); Dorsey v. Nelson Colem, Cainv . CAo.r Nr.o. 10-98, 2010 WL 890980, at *3 (E.D. La. Mar. 8, 2010); Joseph v. Nelson Cole,m Cainv . CAor. rN. Cot. r0. 9-7673, 2010 WL 677742, at *2 (E.D. La. Feb. 24, 2010); Castillo v. Blanco , Civ. A. No. 0-7670, 2010 WL 55447, at *2 (E.D. La. Jan. 7, 2010); , Civ. A. No. 07-215, 2007 WL 2 26428I5T, IaSt *R4E (CEO.DM. LMaE. NAuDgE. D1, 2007). Accordingly, that Plaintiff’s federal civil rights claims against Defendants tDhIeS MLIaSfSoEuDrc hWeI TPHa rPisRhE JUGoDvIeCrEnment and the Lafourche Parish Detention Center be as frivolous and/or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT

A party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation contained in a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation within 14 days after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court, provided that the partyD ohuagsl absese vn. Usneritveedd S wtaittehs nAouttioc.e A tshs’ant such consequences will result from a failure to object. , 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc1).5 th May New Orleans, Louisiana, this day of , 2026.

MICHAEL B. NORTH UNIT ED ST ATES M AGIST RATE JUDGE