The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION
DARRELL WESLEY BANKS CIVIL ACTION NO. 23-1700-P
VERSUS JUDGE EDWARDS
LT. WALKER, ET AL. MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY
REPORT & 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
Darrell Wesley Banks, (“Plaintiff”), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This complaint was filed
in this court on November 27, 2023. Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Caddo Correctional
Center in Shreveport, Louisiana when he filed his complaint. He claims his civil rights were
violated by prison officials. Plaintiff names Lt. Walker, Unknown Correctional Officers,
ERT Cooper, SIU Childress, Detective Jacobs, Detective Richardson, Deputy Pool, Deputy
Brown, Deputy Webb, Deputy Jones, Schubert, Deputy Benjamin, and Deputy Ruffin as
defendants.
Plaintiff claims that on November 16, 2023, Lt. Walker and other correctional officers
placed his dorm on lock-down because of several behavioral management fights that were
totally out of others’ control. He claims cell number one was tear gassed because an
individual was having an anxiety episode. He complains that Lt. Walker punished the entire
dorm because of the actions of a few inmates.
Plaintiff claims SIU Childress, Detective Jacobs, and Detective Richardson allowed
Lt. Walker and his deputies to fabricate disciplinary reports to punish him. He claims that
from November 14, 2022 until December 22, 2023, Lt. Walker, Sgt. Childress, Detective
Jacobs, Detective Richardson, ERT Cooper, Deputy Pool, Deputy Brown, Deputy Webb,
Deputy Jones, Schubert, Deputy, Benjamin, and Deputy Ruffin made ridiculous disciplinary
actions against him and violated his constitutional, institutional, and privacy rights with
frivolous, fabricated, and imagined write-ups. He claims they sent him to men’s mental
health on six or seven occasions by lying that he was suicidal.
Plaintiff claims Lt. Walker treated him as an example with disciplinary infractions.
He claims that on November 14, 2022, Lt. Walker allowed ERT Cooper to taser him via
video court. He claims on another date, Lt. Walker allowed ERT Cooper to restrain him and
slam his eye into the concrete. He claims he has been placed on lockdown on multiple
occasions for frivolous and fictitious reasons. He claims Lt. Walker and his co-workers have
made reasons to keep him on behavior management status. He claims this status caused him
pain and suffering. He claims he had problems with his blood pressure, cholesterol, mental
anguish, and family status. He claims his court hearings were affected.
Plaintiff claims Defendants are very deceiving and incompetent regarding the
administrative remedy procedures. He feels all Defendants should be terminated and
disciplined for their retaliatory tactics.
Page 2 of 5
Plaintiff admits that he did not file a grievance in the prison grievance procedure
based upon the facts which form the basis of this complaint. He states that he did file a
grievance because “[t]hey have failed to properly address any ARP’s previously filed” [Doc.
5, p. 2].
Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks disciplinary action against Defendants, monetary
compensation, a written apology from all Defendants, and any other relief to which he is
entitled.
For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed without
prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Congress has commanded that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison
conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined
in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are
available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. §1997e(a). Section 1997e requires Plaintiff to properly
exhaust available administrative remedies before filing a Section 1983 suit. See Woodford
v. Ngo, 126 S.Ct. 2378 (2006). This exhaustion requirement requires proper exhaustion of
administrative remedies in accordance with prison procedures, and an untimely or otherwise
procedurally defective grievance or appeal will not suffice. Woodford, 126 S.Ct. 2378. The
Fifth Circuit has applied the requirement to claims such as the use of excessive force, see
Wendell, 162 F.3d at 887, and denial of medical care. See Harris v. Hegmann, 198 F.3d 153
(5th Cir. 1999). Failure to exhaust administrative remedies is an affirmative defense, and
Page 3 of 5
“inmates are not required to specifically plead or demonstrate exhaustion in their
complaints.” Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 216 (2007). However, dismissal may be
appropriate when, the complaint on its face establishes the inmate's failure to exhaust. See
Carbe v. Lappin, 492 F.3d 325, 328 (5th Cir.2007); Hicks v. Lingle, 370 Fed. Appx. 497,
498 (5th Cir.2010).
After reviewing Plaintiff’s complaint, the court finds Plaintiff has failed to properly
exhaust administrative remedies. Plaintiff admits he did not file a grievance in the ARP
process [Doc. 5, p.2].
Accordingly;
It is recommended that Plaintiff’s complaint be DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE for failure to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1997e(a).
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.
Page 4 of 5
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
unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court.
See Douglas v. U.S.A.A., 79 F.3d 1415 (Sth Cir. 1996) (en banc).
THUS DONE AND SIGNED, in chambers, in Shreveport, Louisiana, on this the
5th day of December 2024.
PNY
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Page 5 of 5