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.

Daniel J. Leblanc, Sr. v. Warden

June 21, 2012

DANIEL J. LEBLANC, SR.
v.
WARDEN, NEW HAMPSHIRE STATE PRISON, ET AL.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Landya McCafferty United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

The complaint (doc. no. 1) filed by pro se plaintiff Daniel LeBlanc ("LeBlanc") is before the court for preliminary review. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a); United States District Court District of New Hampshire Local Rule ("LR") 4.3(d)(2). In a Report and Recommendation issued simultaneously herewith, the court finds the complaint alleges sufficient facts to state an Eighth Amendment claim and a negligence claim for the violation of LeBlanc's right to be protected from harm, but has failed to allege with sufficient particularity how the named defendants were involved. Accordingly, to state a plausible claim for a violation of LeBlanc's right to be protected from harm, LeBlanc must amend his complaint to allege what each defendant did that reflects deliberate indifference to his right to be protected from harm.

LeBlanc is granted leave to amend his complaint as follows:

(1) LeBlanc must identify the NHSP official(s) that he alleges is/are responsible for failing to protect him;

(2) LeBlanc must state with specificity what each defendant did or failed to do that caused his rights to be violated; and

(3) LeBlanc must assert facts that demonstrate that each defendant acted with deliberate indifference, including facts showing: (a) that the defendant was actually aware of specific facts from which he or she could infer the existence of a significant risk of substantial harm to LeBlanc, and (b) how each defendant failed to reasonably respond to that risk to protect LeBlanc from harm.

Failure to amend the complaint as directed, within thirty (30) days of the date of this order, will result in this court's recommendation that the complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief might be granted.

SO ORDERED.

cc:

LBM:jkc

20120621

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw ...

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.