Hilaman v. Bossier Maximum Facility

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Louisiana
DecidedFebruary 25, 2025
Docket5:25-cv-00174
StatusUnknown

This text of Hilaman v. Bossier Maximum Facility (Hilaman v. Bossier Maximum Facility) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hilaman v. Bossier Maximum Facility, (W.D. La. 2025).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

SHREVEPORT DIVISION

TYLER DOUGLAS HILAMAN CIVIL ACTION NO. 25-174-P

VERSUS JUDGE DOUGHTY

BOSSIER MAXIMUM FACILITY MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY ADMNISTRATION

MEMORANDUM ORDER Before the court is a civil rights complaint filed in forma pauperis by pro se plaintiff Tyler Douglas Hilaman (“Plaintiff”), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This complaint was received and filed in this court on February 10, 2025. Plaintiff is incarcerated at the Bossier Maximum Security Center in Plain Dealing, Louisiana. He names the Bossier Maximum Facility as defendant. Plaintiff states that on December 12, 2024, he was placed on suicide watch until December 18, 2024. He claims that during this time, he was not allowed to shower. He claims the deputies told him every day that he was not allowed to shower. Plaintiff claims that on December 18, 2024, the mental health doctor Mrs. Morgan came to see him and released him from suicide watch. He claims Mrs. Morgan told him that he was allowed to shower. Plaintiff feels he was treated with cruel and unusual punishment. He claims not allowing him to shower was an unsanitary practice. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks to have his current charges dismissed and monetary damages. For a Section 1983 claim to be meritorious, the Plaintiff must allege facts

sufficient to establish that state actors were deliberately indifferent to his constitutional rights. See Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312 (1986). Before this court can determine the proper disposition of this matter, the Plaintiff should be given the opportunity to set forth with specificity the factual basis of his claim. See Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th

Cir. 1985). For this court to determine what action, if any, shall be taken on this suit; THE CLERK IS DIRECTED to serve by mail, a copy of this memorandum order upon the Plaintiff, who is ORDERED to furnish to the Clerk of Court in Shreveport, Louisiana, within thirty (30) days after service of this order, an amended

complaint setting forth the factual allegations of his civil rights suit. Specifically, the Plaintiff must submit the following to this court: 1. WHO violated his civil rights; 2. HOW his civil rights were violated; 3. A list of specific damages or prejudice suffered by him; and

4. The specific relief he seeks. Plaintiff is advised that claims for release from incarceration should be raised in a separate petition for habeas relief. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of Plaintiff’s suit pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. THUS DONE AND SIGNED, in chambers, in Shreveport, Louisiana, on this 25th day of February 2025.

Mark L. Hornsby U.S. Magistrate Judge

Page 3 of 3

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Whitley v. Albers
475 U.S. 312 (Supreme Court, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Hilaman v. Bossier Maximum Facility, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hilaman-v-bossier-maximum-facility-lawd-2025.