Moore v. Woods Security Co., No. 2:2007cv00156 - Document 8 (N.D. Miss. 2007)
Court Description: OPINION re 7 Final Judgment dismissing case. Signed by Judge W. Allen Pepper, Jr. on 10/30/2007. (pbs, USDC)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Moore v. Woods Security Co. Doc. 8 Case 2:07-cv-00156-WAP-EMB Document 8 Filed 10/30/2007 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI DELTA DIVISION GLENN MOORE, PLAINTIFF V. NO. 2:07CV156-P-B WOODS SECURITY CO, DEFENDANT OPINION DISMISSING CLAIMS This matter is before the court, sua sponte, for consideration of dismissal. Plaintiff, an inmate currently incarcerated at the Coahoma County Jail, files this pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff complains that he was assaulted by a private security guard prior to his arrest and incarceration. Plaintiff is seeking damages from the security company and immediate release from incarceration. Plaintiff s complaint does not involve MDOC personnel nor staff. After carefully considering the contents of the pro se complaint and giving it the liberal construction required by Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), this court has come to the following conclusion. It is clear that whether claims are habeas corpus or civil rights in nature a plaintiff must be deprived of some right secured to him by the Constitution or the laws of the United States. Irving v. Thigpen, 732 F.2d 1215, 1216 (5th Cir. 1984)(citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) (1982); Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137 (1979); and Trussell v. Estelle, 699 F.2d 256, 259 (5th Cir. 1983)). In the event there is no constitutional right, the plaintiff'complaint fails. Irving, 732 F.2d at 1216 (citing s Thomas v. Torres, 717 F.2d 248, 249 (5th Cir. 1983)). Despite Plaintiff s perception, the Constitution has not been implicated by the facts of this case. According to his own complaint, there is State action involved in this case. The assault of which he complains occurred outside of the penal system. If Plaintiff has stated a claim at all, it Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:07-cv-00156-WAP-EMB Document 8 Filed 10/30/2007 Page 2 of 2 would be based purely on state law and is not appropriate for section 1983 relief. Consequently, Plaintiff s complaint is dismissed for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The court s dismissal of Plaintiff s complaint for failure to state a claim shall count as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Mr. Moore is cautioned that once he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). A final judgment in accordance with this opinion will be entered. THIS the 30th day of October, 2007. /s/ W. Allen Pepper, Jr. W. ALLEN PEPPER, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
