Michael L. Greene v. Miranda Bordelon et al

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Louisiana
DecidedOctober 23, 2025
Docket1:25-cv-00538
StatusUnknown

This text of Michael L. Greene v. Miranda Bordelon et al (Michael L. Greene v. Miranda Bordelon et al) 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
Michael L. Greene v. Miranda Bordelon et al, (W.D. La. 2025).

Opinion

a UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

MICHAEL L GREENE #22768-058, CIVIL DOCKET NO. 1:25-CV-00538 Plaintiff SEC P

VERSUS JUDGE TERRY A. DOUGHTY

MIRANDA BORDELON ET AL, MAGISTRATE JUDGE PEREZ-MONTES Defendants

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is a civil Complaint (ECF No. 1) filed pursuant to , 403 U.S. 388 (1971), by pro se Plaintiff Michael L. Greene (“Greene”). Greene is imprisoned at the United States Penitentiary in Pollock, Louisiana (“USP-P”). He requests monetary damages and injunctive relief for the alleged deprivation of adequate medical care and retaliation. Because Greene fails to state a viable claim, his Complaint should be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. I. Background Greene claims he has been on a hunger strike since February 15, 2025, to protest: (1) the Bureau of Prison’s (“BOP”) failure to properly classify him as a medium security inmate; (2) widespread corruption in the BOP’s maximum security prisons; and (3) USP-P’s contaminated water system. ECF No. 1 at 1-3. He asserts that he “will not eat again until the BOP addresses the aforementioned issues.” at 3. Greene alleges that his hunger strike is causing low blood sugar, low blood

pressure, left kidney pain, extreme migraine headaches, dizzy spells, and “blacking out.” ECF No. 1 at 3. Greene further alleges that, in retaliation for his protest, Miranda Bordelon is colluding with other staff members to punish him by taking him off Ensure health supplement drink and intentionally trying to make Greene “pass out” so they can “force a tube up his nose.” at 4. Greene asserts that he was wrongfully moved from a medical observation cell to a non-observation cell in the Special Housing Unit

(“SHU”), in violation of BOP policy. at 5. He also alleges that Defendants falsified documents claiming that Greene had eaten food. at 5-6. Greene seeks injunctive relief in the form of an order that Defendants provide him with Ensure or other fluids while he is on strike, an order that he be transferred to another facility, and for costs to be assessed to Defendants. ECF No. 1 at 6. In his Motion for Emergency Hearing, Greene alleges that he was transported

to the emergency room on May 5, 2025, to receive intravenous fluids due to dehydration. ECF No. 6 at 2. He states that on May 9, 2025, Defendants threatened to “force feed” him. . In an Amended Complaint, Greene alleges that the prison doctor ordered that he be provided with Ensure, broth, and other fluids, but staff members refuse to comply with the doctor’s order. ECF No. 10 at 2. Considering this new allegation, the Court ordered the Government to respond to the Emergency Motion and Complaint within seven days. Greene seeks damages “in excess of six million dollars,” as well as injunctive

relief. ECF No. 18. II. Law and Analysis A. Greene’s Complaint is subject to preliminary screening. Because Greene is a prisoner1 suing officers or employees of a governmental entity and proceeding , his Complaint is subject to preliminary screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and § 1915(e)(2). Both statues provide for dismissal of a complaint, or any portion thereof, if a court finds it is frivolous

or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. B. Greene fails to state a viable claim for damages or injunctive relief.

A claim is “an implied private action for damages against federal officers alleged to have violated a citizen's constitutional rights.” , 534 U.S. 61, 66 (2001). In , the Supreme Court recognized a cause of action for money damages under the Fourth Amendment where federal agents allegedly “manacled” the plaintiff “in front of his wife and children and threatened to arrest the entire family”; “searched the apartment from stem to stem”;

1 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h), “‘prisoner’ means any person incarcerated or detained in any facility who is accused of, convicted of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms and conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program.” and took him to a federal courthouse where he was “interrogated, booked, and subjected to a visual strip search.” , 403 U.S. at 389. In the next decade, the Supreme Court recognized two other causes of action

against federal officers: (1) for sex discrimination against a former congressional staffer in violation of the Fifth Amendment, , 442 U.S. 228 (1979); and (2) for a failure to provide an asthmatic prisoner with adequate medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment, , 446 U.S. 14 (1980). Since then, the Supreme Court has not once extended the remedy, and it has declined to do so at least a dozen times. , 22-40579, 2023 WL 5814910, at *1 (5th Cir. 2023) (per curiam) (unpublished) (citing , 596

U.S. 482 (2022)). Greene alleges that he is being denied adequate medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment and subject to retaliation under the First Amendment. To succeed on a claim for the deprivation of medical care, a plaintiff must show that Defendants are deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. To state a viable claim, a plaintiff must allege that a federal actor refused to treat him, ignored his

complaints, knowingly treated him incorrectly, or otherwise evidenced a wanton disregard for his serious medical needs. , 884 F.3d 534, 538 (5th Cir. 2018) (citing , 239 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir. 2001)). Greene provides no such allegations. In fact, he admits that he was provided medical care when he was recently transported to the emergency room to receive treatment for dehydration. ECF No. 6 at 1. Furthermore, the Government provided records documenting the extensive medical care Greene received. ECF No. 13-1. Greene formally declared his hunger strike on February 15, 2025. ECF No. 13-1 at 1151. On February 18, 2025, V.

Jameson, RN, BSN, assessed Greene and documented his hunger strike. ECF No. 13-1 at 815. Nurse Jameson recorded Greene’s weight at 140.4 pounds and notified the psychology services department of Greene’s condition. at 815-16. Nurse Jameson advised Greene of the potential adverse health results of failing to intake adequate nutrition, and Greene verbalized his understanding. Greene was placed on medical observation, where he received several daily medical encounters. Prison officials continued to deliver Greene’s meals, which he refused. ECF No. 13-1

at 4. On February 19, 2025, normal vital statistics were noted, and Greene’s weight was recorded at 139.5. ECF No. 13-1 at 812-13. Greene refused water. at 813. Greene complained that he should not be housed at a penitentiary. . at 812. The following day, Greene’s weight was recorded at 137. at 809. Maxwell Dunbar, RN, noted elevated heart rate during seated to standing position change, as

well as dark urine output. at 810. Greene was advised of the risks of deficient calorie intake and advised to hydrate to protect organ function. Greene was also evaluated by Dr. Padilla that day. at 803.

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

Related

Neals v. Norwood
59 F.3d 530 (Fifth Circuit, 1995)
Yates v. Stalder
217 F.3d 332 (Fifth Circuit, 2000)
Domino v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice
239 F.3d 752 (Fifth Circuit, 2001)
Freeman v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice
369 F.3d 854 (Fifth Circuit, 2004)
Armendariz-Mata v. Lappin
157 F. App'x 767 (Fifth Circuit, 2005)
Taylor v. Carlize
172 F. App'x 589 (Fifth Circuit, 2006)
Gobert v. Caldwell
463 F.3d 339 (Fifth Circuit, 2006)
Meachum v. Fano
427 U.S. 215 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Davis v. Passman
442 U.S. 228 (Supreme Court, 1979)
Carlson v. Green
446 U.S. 14 (Supreme Court, 1980)
Bush v. Lucas
462 U.S. 367 (Supreme Court, 1983)
Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko
534 U.S. 61 (Supreme Court, 2001)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Roland Mike Sanders v. United States
438 F.2d 918 (Fifth Circuit, 1971)
Claude E. Woods v. Larry Smith
60 F.3d 1161 (Fifth Circuit, 1995)
Reichle v. Howards
132 S. Ct. 2088 (Supreme Court, 2012)
In Re Soliman
134 F. Supp. 2d 1238 (N.D. Alabama, 2001)
Hadjarab v. Bush
953 F. Supp. 2d 213 (District of Columbia, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Michael L. Greene v. Miranda Bordelon et al, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-l-greene-v-miranda-bordelon-et-al-lawd-2025.