Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Drake v. Great Falls Regional Prison

United States District Court, D. Montana, Great Falls Division

June 1, 2018

MARCUS TODD DRAKE, Plaintiff,
v.
GREAT FALLS REGIONAL PRISON, CMDR. DAN O'FALLON, UNIT MNGR. MR. HARRIS, D.O. LENAHAN, D.O.C. MONITOR MR. HATTON, Defendants.

          ORDER

          John T. Johnston United States Magistrate Judge

         Order and Findings and Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Marcus Drake's Complaint (Doc. 2) and motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 14.) The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and therefore this matter should be dismissed. As such, the motion for appointment of counsel will be denied.

         I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

         A. Parties

         Plaintiff Marcus Drake is a prisoner proceeding without counsel. He is currently incarcerated in Kansas but his claims arose during his incarceration in the Great Falls Regional Prison.

         The named Defendants are the Great Falls Regional Prison, Unit Manager Harris, Commander Dan O'Fallon, Detention Officer Lenahan, and DOC Monitor Hatton. (Complaint, Doc. 2 at 2-3.)

         B. Statement of Claims

         Mr. Drake alleges that on September 21, 2017 he was handcuffed to a bench in the booking area of the Great Falls Regional Prison waiting for his parole hearing. When he was called for the hearing, Unit Manager Harris and Officer Lenahan approached him to remove the handcuffs. He alleges that under the pretext of trying to remove faulty handcuffs, Officer Lenahan brushed his hand and forearm across Mr. Drake's genitals. When Mr. Drake tried to shift away, Officer Lenaham grabbed his private area and grinned at him in a menacing way. He alleges Mr. Harris and DOC Monitor Hatton witnessed the incident. (Complaint, Doc. 2 at 3.)

         In the injury section of the Complaint, Mr. Drake alleges he now suffers excessive and constant fear, undue stress, fear of authority, extreme anguish, and is socially withdrawn. (Complaint, Doc. 2 at 4.)

         II. SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915, 1915A

         A. Standard

         Because Mr. Drake is a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court must review his Complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915, 1915A. Sections 1915A(b) and 1915(e)(2)(B) require the Court to dismiss a complaint filed in forma pauperis and/or by a prisoner against a governmental defendant before it is served if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

         A complaint is frivolous if it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). “A case is malicious if it was filed with the intention or desire to harm another.” Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005). A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if a plaintiff fails to allege the “grounds” of his “entitlement to relief.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quotation omitted).

         Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a complaint “that states a claim for relief must contain . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the [plaintiff] is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). This rule requires a complaint to “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.