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.

Jasmaine v. Arron

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division

September 30, 2019

JENNIFER ANN JASMAINE f/k/a DUANE L. FOX, Plaintiff,
v.
FNU AARON, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          FRANK D. WHITNEY, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         THIS MATTER is before the Court on initial review of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, [Doc. 8]. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). On March 19, 2019, the Court entered an order waiving the initial filing fee and directing monthly payments to be made from Plaintiff’s prison account. [Doc. 9]. Thus, Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Pro se Plaintiff Jennifer Ann Jasmaine, a North Carolina prisoner incarcerated at Eastern Correctional Institution in Maury, North Carolina, filed this action on January 16, 2019, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has named the following persons as Defendants: (1) FNU Aaron, (2) FNU Germaney, and (3) FNU Hatley. Plaintiff does not identify these Defendants any more specifically in her Amended Complaint or allege any facts particular to any Defendant. Plaintiff generally alleges that her constitutional due process and Eighth Amendment rights are being violated because she has been wrongly classified as being in a security threat group (“STG”) (i.e., a gang member) while in prison. Plaintiff also purports to state claims for slander, “official knowledge of risk, ” and that “Ms. Jasmaine is unusually vulnerable.” [Doc. 8 at 2-5]. Plaintiff alleges, specifically:

         The plaintiff, Ms. Jasmaine has a music group tattooed on her forearm (Insane Clown Posse). The plaintiff, Ms. Jasmaines safety is at risk because the defendants put her on the STG highest level, Level III. Any prison she goes to she will have to go to a unit full of real gang members.

Ms. Jasmaine is currently being punished, because of her being put on STG Level III she’s only allowed one phone call per month and she has to send her mail out opened so they can read it, (other inmates who are not STG don’t have to send their mail opened), (see exhibit A)
Puting A Transgender woman on a predominately gang unit is putting her at risk and puting her at the highest Level, SRG Level III, guarenties the risk. The risk at hand is a strong likelihood rather than more possibility putting a transgender woman on a predominately gang unit. Brown v. Hughes, 894 F.2d 1533, 1537 (11th Cir. 1990).
At the prison where the plaintiff, Ms. Jasmaine is being housed inmate-on-inmate violence, even inmate-on-officer violence is common and uncontrolled, officials may be held Liable.[1]

[Doc. 8 at 1-2, 4 (spelling and grammatical errors uncorrected)]. Other than the alleged potential risk of harm, Plaintiff does not allege that she has suffered any actual injury as a result of her STG classification.

         For relief, Plaintiff requests declaratory relief, compensatory and punitive damages, and her removal from STG classification. [Doc. 8 at 8].

         II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court must review the Complaint to determine whether it is subject to dismissal on the grounds that it is “frivolous or malicious [or] fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Furthermore, § 1915A requires an initial review of a “complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity, ” and the court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. In its frivolity review, this Court must determine whether the Complaint raises an indisputably meritless legal theory or is founded upon clearly baseless factual contentions, such as fantastic or delusional scenarios. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989).

         III. ...


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.