Roberts v. Jackson Parish

W.D. Louisiana

Roberts v. Jackson Parish

DecidedApril 1, 2024

Docket3:24-cv-00057

StatusUnknown

This text of Roberts v. Jackson Parish (Roberts v. Jackson Parish) 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

Roberts v. Jackson Parish, (W.D. La. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MONROE DIVISION JOEL N ROBERTS #519216 CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:24-00057 (Sec. P.) VERSUS JUDGE EDWARDS SHERIFFS DEPT JACKSON PARISH, ET AL MAG. JUDGE KAYLA D. MCCLUSKY

MEMORANDUM ORDER Pending before the undersigned is a motion for transfer filed by Plaintiff Joel N. Roberts. Mr. Roberts is currently housed at Madison Parish Correctional Center, but has filed a lawsuit only against the Sheriff of Jackson Parish and others associated with the Jackson Parish Correctional Center. However, Mr. Roberts now raises issues regarding his placement at Madison Parish Correctional Center. First, if Mr. Robert wishes to bring suit against individuals at Madison Parish Correctional Center, he must file a separate lawsuit. Second, regardless, Mr. Roberts seeks a remedy that the Court cannot provide. While Mr. Roberts appears to be a pre-trial detainee, generally a prisoner has no constitutional right to be housed in any particular facility or transferred from one facility to another, even if conditions and

amenities in one may be preferable to another. Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245-46 (1983); Fuselier v. Mancuso, 354 F. App’x 49, 2009 WL 3780729, at *1 (5th Cir. Nov. 12, 2009). “The Due Process Clause does not, by itself, endow a prisoner with a protected liberty interest in the location of his confinement.” Yates v. Stalder, 217 F.3d 332, 334 (5th Cir. 2000); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 225 (1976) (“[T]he State may confine [a prisoner] and subject him to the rules of its prison system so long as the conditions of confinement do not otherwise violate the Constitution.”). In Maddox v. Thomas, 671 F.2d 949, 950 (Sth Cir. 1982), the Fifth Circuit specifically held that a that a Dallas County pretrial detainee had “no Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest in being imprisoned at one carcel rather than other, even if ‘life in one is much more disagreeable than in another...’ ” (Citing Meacham v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 225 (1976)). It is “well settled that the decision where to house inmates is at the core of prison administrators’ expertise.” McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24, 39 (2002).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Mr. Robert’s motion for transfer is DENIED. If Mr. Roberts wishes to raise claims against individuals at the Madison Parish Correctional Center, he must file a separate action. The Clerk of Court is instructed to attach a copy of the appropriate forms to this Order. MONROE, LOUISIANA, this 1* day of April, 2024.

ih Ac KAY} E MCCIUSKY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MONROE DIVISION JOEL N ROBERTS #519216 CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:24-00057 (Sec. P.) VERSUS JUDGE EDWARDS SHERIFFS DEPT JACKSON PARISH, ET AL MAG. JUDGE KAYLA D. MCCLUSKY

MEMORANDUM ORDER Pending before the undersigned is a motion for transfer filed by Plaintiff Joel N. Roberts. Mr. Roberts is currently housed at Madison Parish Correctional Center, but has filed a lawsuit only against the Sheriff of Jackson Parish and others associated with the Jackson Parish Correctional Center. However, Mr. Roberts now raises issues regarding his placement at Madison Parish Correctional Center. First, if Mr. Robert wishes to bring suit against individuals at Madison Parish Correctional Center, he must file a separate lawsuit. Second, regardless, Mr. Roberts seeks a remedy that the Court cannot provide. While Mr. Roberts appears to be a pre-trial detainee, generally a prisoner has no constitutional right to be housed in any particular facility or transferred from one facility to another, even if conditions and

amenities in one may be preferable to another. Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245-46 (1983); Fuselier v. Mancuso, 354 F. App’x 49, 2009 WL 3780729, at *1 (5th Cir. Nov. 12, 2009). “The Due Process Clause does not, by itself, endow a prisoner with a protected liberty interest in the location of his confinement.” Yates v. Stalder, 217 F.3d 332, 334 (5th Cir. 2000); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 225 (1976) (“[T]he State may confine [a prisoner] and subject him to the rules of its prison system so long as the conditions of confinement do not otherwise violate the Constitution.”). In Maddox v. Thomas, 671 F.2d 949, 950 (Sth Cir. 1982), the Fifth Circuit specifically held that a that a Dallas County pretrial detainee had “no Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest in being imprisoned at one carcel rather than other, even if ‘life in one is much more disagreeable than in another...’ ” (Citing Meacham v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 225 (1976)). It is “well settled that the decision where to house inmates is at the core of prison administrators’ expertise.” McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24, 39 (2002).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Mr. Robert’s motion for transfer is DENIED. If Mr. Roberts wishes to raise claims against individuals at the Madison Parish Correctional Center, he must file a separate action. The Clerk of Court is instructed to attach a copy of the appropriate forms to this Order. MONROE, LOUISIANA, this 1* day of April, 2024.

ih Ac KAY} E MCCIUSKY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Roberts v. Jackson Parish, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberts-v-jackson-parish-lawd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack