Longoria v. Remedies

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

SHREVEPORT DIVISION

JAMIE LESTER LONGORIA CIVIL ACTION NO. 23-1457-P

VERSUS JUDGE DOUGHTY

KAYLYNN REMEDIES, ET AL. MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY

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 by pro se plaintiff Jamie Lester

Longoria (“Plaintiff”), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This complaint was received and

filed in this court on October 13, 2023. Plaintiff is detained at the Sabine Parish Detention

Center in Many, Louisiana, and claims his civil rights were violated by prison officials.

Plaintiff names KayLynn Remedies and Berlin Sweet as Defendants.

Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee whose detention began on May 12, 2023. On May 18,

2023, his roommate returned to his residence and died. He claims his roommate died of

natural causes.

Plaintiff claims that on May 23, 2023, Assistant Warden Kaylynn Remedies came

to the door of his dorm and in front of the entire dorm stated that he needed to go back to

Texas to get more dope so someone else could overdose at his house. Plaintiff claims this

is a violation of his civil rights and defamed him and the deceased.

Plaintiff claims that on July 25, 2023, guards searched his dorm for contraband. He

claims the guards found two tattoo needles, a toothpaste cap of dried ink, a plastic spoon

with dried ink, and a bowl with dried ink in various cells. He claims that 30 minutes after

the search, he was called to booking where there was a guard with a Miranda rights form.

He claims the guard did not officially rebook him. He claims Kaylynn Remedies and Berlin

Sweet charged only him for the contraband of the entire dorm.

Plaintiff states that on July 26, 2023, he wrote a grievance in the administrative

remedy procedure regarding Assistant Warden Remedies allegedly defaming him on May

23, 2023. He claims he was placed on lockdown for three days for filing the grievance in

the administrative remedy procedure.

Plaintiff claims the administration further disgraced him and injured his reputation

by publicizing defamatory, false statements of a non-official arrest before he appeared in

state court in order to portray him as someone with no regard of the law. He claims his

name was slandered on the radio and in the newspaper. He claims the administrative staff

later dropped all charges without a disciplinary hearing.

Plaintiff claims that on September 14, 2023, his legal mail was opened. He claims

one letter was from the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board regarding the termination

of his attorney. He claims the other letter was from his former attorney regarding two

different cases.

Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

Defamation, Slander, and Libel Claims

Plaintiff claims Assistant Warden Kaylynn Remedies violated his civil rights and

defamed him on May 23, 2023. He also claims that the administration defamed and

slandered him in the newspaper and on the radio by publicizing false statements of a non-

official arrest. It is well established that there is no constitutional right to be free from

defamation or slander. See Paul v. Davis, 96 S. Ct. 1155, 1166 (1976) (recognizing that,

while a State may protect against injury to reputation by virtue of its tort law, a person's

reputation does not implicate a “liberty” or “property” interest of the sort protected by the

Due Process Clause). Thus, libel and slander are not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,

because a defamation claim does not involve the deprivation of any rights, privileges or

immunities which are secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. See Cook

v. Houston Post, 616 F.2d 791, 794 (5th Cir. 1980); Mowbray v. Cameron County, Tex.,

274 F.3d 269, 277 (5th Cir. 2001); Oliver v. Collins, 904 F.2d 278, 281 (5th Cir. 1990).

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims regarding defamation, slander, and libel are

frivolous and should be dismissed with prejudice.

False Disciplinary Report

Plaintiff complains that only he was charged for the contraband of the entire dorm.

To the extent Plaintiff claims that he was issued a false disciplinary report, Plaintiff has no

right which protects him from being charged with a disciplinary offense. This is true

regardless of the truth of the initial report. Freeman v. Rideout, 808 F.2d 949, 952 (2nd

Cir.1986); Hanrahan v. Lane, 747 F.2d 1137, 1140–41 (7th Cir.1984); Cardine v. Tucker,

23 F.3d 406, (6th Cir.1994). Even if the actions of Defendants resulted in false disciplinary

action being taken against him, Plaintiff's claim against them is not cognizable because he

has no constitutional protection from being wrongly charged with a disciplinary offense.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims regarding the false disciplinary report should be

dismissed with prejudice as frivolous.

Retaliation Claim

Plaintiff claims he was placed on lockdown for three days because he filed a

grievance in the administrative remedy procedure. To state a claim of retaliation an inmate

must allege the violation of a specific constitutional right and be prepared to establish that

but for the retaliatory motive, the complained of incident – the placement on lockdown -

would not have occurred. Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161 (5th Cir. 1995), citing Mt. Healthy

City School Board District Bd. Of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 97 S.Ct. 568, 50

L.Ed.2d 471 (1977).

The retaliatory motive alleged by Plaintiff is entirely conclusory as he provides no

specific allegations showing that “but for” this retaliatory motive the three-day lockdown

would not have occurred. Furthermore, Plaintiff does provide the court with a response to

his grievance regarding the retaliation which states that he was placed on lockdown for

three days for contraband [Doc. 1, p. 25].

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims regarding retaliation should be dismissed with

prejudice as frivolous.

Legal Mail Claims

Plaintiff claims that on September 14, 2023, his legal mail was opened. The opening

of a prisoner's legal mail outside of his presence does not rise to the level of a constitutional

violation. Brewer v. Wilkinson, 3 F.3d 816, 825 (5th Cir. 2009) (recognizing that “the

violation of [a] prison regulation requiring that a prisoner be present when his incoming

legal mail is opened and inspected is not a violation of a prisoner's constitutional rights”

when there is no proof that such tampering was prejudicial to the inmate's access to the

courts and when the practice was reasonably related to legitimate penological interests);

Henthorn v. Swinson, 955 F.2d 351, 353 (5th Cir. 1992) (rejecting a complaint concerning

the opening of legal mail not bearing the required “special mail” inscription outside of an

inmate's presence); See also Singletary v. Stadler, 2001 WL 1131949 (5th Cir. 2001)

(unpublished per curiam) (affirming that “prisoners do not have a constitutional right to be

present when privileged, legal mail is opened and inspected”). This is still true even if the

prison has a policy that such mail is to be opened only in the inmate's presence, because “a

prison official's failure to follow the prison's own policies does not, itself, result in a

constitutional violation.” Samford v. Dretke, 562 F.3d 674, 681 (5th Cir. 2009).

Accordingly, these claims should be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous.

CONCLUSION

Because Plaintiff is a prisoner, this court may dismiss the complaint before or after

service of process, and before or after answers have been filed, if it finds the complaint

“frivolous” or if it “fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted”. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A; See Martin v. Scott, 156 F.3d 578, 579-80 (5th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 527 U.S.

1041 (1999).

Accordingly;

IT IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiffs civil rights complaint be DISMISSED

WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous.

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 objection 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

recommendations 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 (Sth Cir. 1996) (en banc).

THUS DONE AND SIGNED, in chambers, in Shreveport, Louisiana, on this 13th

day of December, 2024.

PNY

Page 6 of 6