Nelson v. Alleman

SCOTT D. JOHNSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MICHAEL NELSON (#53923) 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 23-504-BAJ-SDJ
RHONDA ALLEMAN, ET AL.
NOTICE
Please take notice that the attached Magistrate Judge’s Report has been filed with the Clerk
of the U. S. District Court.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), you have 14 days after being served with the
attached report to file written objections to the proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
recommendations set forth therein. Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings,
conclusions, and recommendations within 14 days after being served will bar you, except upon
grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and
legal conclusions accepted by the District Court.
ABSOLUTELY NO EXTENSION OF TIME SHALL BE GRANTED TO FILE
WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on January 5, 2026.
S
Case 3:23-cv-00504-BAJ-SDJ Document 64 01/05/26 Page 1 of 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MICHAEL NELSON (#53923) 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 23-504-BAJ-SDJ
RHONDA ALLEMAN, ET AL.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter comes before the Court on Cross Motions for Summary Judgment filed on
behalf of Plaintiff (R. Doc. 60) and Defendants (R. Doc. 53).
The pro se Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee confined at the West Baton Rouge Detention Center,
Port Allen, Louisiana, filed this proceeding pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants
Warden Rhonda Alleman and others1 . He seeks monetary and declaratory relief.
Plaintiff moves for summary judgment relying upon the pleadings, and copies of a Reply
to Inmate Request and Petition for Cause. Defendants move for summary judgment relying upon
the pleadings, a Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, the Declaration of Rhonda Alleman, the
deposition of Plaintiff, the jail’s Grievance Procedure, and copies of various state and criminal
court proceedings.
Summary Judgment Standard
Pursuant to well-established legal principles, summary judgment is appropriate where there
is no genuine disputed issue as to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law. Rule 56, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986). A party moving for summary
judgment must inform the Court of the basis for the motion and identify those portions of the
1 All of the plaintiff’s claim have been dismissed except his claims asserted against defendant Alleman in her
personal capacity. See R. Doc. 20.
Case 3:23-cv-00504-BAJ-SDJ Document 64 01/05/26 Page 2 of 10

pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with affidavits,
if any, that show that there is no such genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
supra, 477 U.S. at 323. If the moving party carries its burden of proof under Rule 56, the opposing
party must direct the court’s attention to specific evidence in the record which demonstrates that
the non-moving party can satisfy a reasonable jury that it is entitled to a verdict in its favor.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., supra, 477 U.S. at 248. This burden is not satisfied by some
metaphysical doubt as to alleged material facts, by unsworn and unsubstantiated assertions, by
conclusory allegations, or by a mere scintilla of evidence. Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069,
1075 (5th Cir. 1994). Rather, Rule 56 mandates that summary judgment be entered against a party
who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that
party’s case and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
supra, 477 U.S. at 323. Summary judgment is appropriate in any case where the evidence is so
weak or tenuous on essential facts that the evidence could not support a judgment in favor of the
non-moving party. Little v. Liquid Air Corp., supra, 37 F.3d at 1075. In resolving a motion for
summary judgment, the court must review the facts and inferences in the light most favorable to
the non-moving party, and the court may not evaluate the credibility of witnesses, weigh the
evidence, or resolve factual disputes. International Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally’s, Inc., 939 F.2d 1257,
1263 (5th Cir. 1991).
Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies
Defendant first asserts that Plaintiff’s claims are subject to dismissal because Plaintiff has
failed to exhaust available administrative remedies relative thereto as mandated by 42 U.S.C. §
1997e. Pursuant to this statute, Plaintiff was required to exhaust administrative remedies available
Case 3:23-cv-00504-BAJ-SDJ Document 64 01/05/26 Page 3 of 10

to him at the prison prior to commencing a civil action in this Court with respect to prison
conditions.
This provision is mandatory and applies broadly to “all inmate suits about prison life.”
Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002). Further, a prisoner must exhaust administrative
remedies by complying with applicable prison grievance procedures before filing a suit relative to
prison conditions. Johnson v. Johnson, 385 F.3d 503, 517 (5th Cir. 2004). Not only must the
prisoner exhaust all available remedies, but such exhaustion must be proper, including compliance
with an agency’s deadlines and other critical procedural rules. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90
(2006).
One of the principal purposes of the administrative exhaustion requirement is to provide
fair notice to prison officials of an inmate’s specific complaints so as to provide “‘time and
opportunity to address complaints internally.’” Johnson v. Johnson, supra, 385 F.3d at 516,
quoting Porter v. Nussle, supra, 534 U.S. at 525. Further, the degree of specificity necessary in a
prisoner’s grievance should be evaluated in light of this intended purpose. Id.
In this regard, the grievance procedure at the West Baton Rouge Detention Center requires
an offender to complete a grievance form via a kiosk or tablet within 30 days of the complained
of event. The grievance is then screened and upon acceptance is referred to an employee who may
best respond to the request. The procedure further provides that the grievance will not be referred
to an employee who is involved in the matter that is the basis of the grievance. The employee then
investigates and responds within 30 days of the filing of the grievance. Upon receiving the response
or expiration of the 30 days, the offender may request review by the Warden by filing a Request
for Warden’s Review. The Warden will then respond within 60 days of the filing of the grievance.
See R. Doc. 53-8.
Case 3:23-cv-00504-BAJ-SDJ Document 64 01/05/26 Page 4 of 10

Defendant asserts that Plaintiff filed several grievances but never proceeded to the second
step of the process by filing a Request for Warden’s Review. In support of this argument,
Defendant refers the Court to Record Document 30-1 without reference to any specific pages in
this 208-page document. Copies of the plaintiff’s grievances begin on page 163. Plaintiff filed the
following pertinent grievances:
Request ID 491084 dated 5/14/22
Regarding visits with his attorneys
being cut short
Status – not answered
Request ID 526410 dated 8/6/22
Regarding 	phones 	working
improperly 	and 	visits 	with 	his
attorneys being cut short and lack of
attorney visits on weekends
Status – Resolved Substantiated –
internet and phone company notified
Request ID 581372 dated 12/21/22
Regarding lack of phone privileges
for entire dorm preventing contact
with lawyers
Status – Resolved Unsubstantiated
Appeal Request ID 584155 dated 12/29/22
Appears 	to 	relate 	to 	the 	phone
privileges
Status – Resolved Substantiated –
dorm 	was 	on 	lockdown 	for
disciplinary reasons, privileges have
been restored
Request ID 616136 dated 3/23/23
Regarding 	9 	months 	of 	denial 	of
visitation 	and 	interference 	with
visitation 	with 	attorneys 	from
Longman Jakuback.
Status – not answered
Request ID 728573 dated 12/4/23
Regarding 	interference 	with 	in-
person and virtual visits with attorney
Stockstill
Status – not answered
In his Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff asserts that the grievance process was
unavailable to him. However, Plaintiff filed numerous grievances, some of which were answered
and some of which were not. Upon expiration of the 30-day response period, Plaintiff was free to
proceed to the second step in the process, which he did in one instance concerning phone privileges
(Appeal Request ID 584155). However, it appears that Plaintiff failed to proceed to the second
step for the remainder of the pertinent grievances. Additionally, the last referenced grievance
(728573) was filed after the filing of the Complaint. As such, all grievances for which Plaintiff did
not proceed to the second step and the one filed after the filing of the Complaint were not exhausted
Case 3:23-cv-00504-BAJ-SDJ Document 64 01/05/26 Page 5 of 10

prior to the filing of the Complaint, as required. Plaintiff has presented no evidence showing that
the grievance process was unavailable to him.
Yet, attached to Plaintiff’s Motion is what appears to be an emergency grievance filed on
March 21, 2023, at 11:10 a.m. Therein Plaintiff complains that he has been denied visits with his
attorneys from Longman Jakuback for months and requests approval of their visits and visits on
weekends. 	The 	request 	was 	assigned 	to 	Warden 	Alleman 	and 	is 	marked 	as 	“Resolved
Substantiated.” Therein Warden Alleman notes that she was provided notice from the US
Attorney’s office indicating that Longman Jacubak was representing Plaintiff in his state matter
and can now visit Plaintiff. The response is dated March 21, 2023, at 3:24 p.m. As such, it appears
this emergency grievance was exhausted as there was no need to proceed to the second step since
Warden Alleman granted the requested relief herself. Therefore, Plaintiff did not need to file a
request for Warden’s Review.
In sum, competent summary judgment evidence establishes, and there is no competent
summary judgment evidence to the contrary, that Plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative
remedies prior to filing this action except as to one claim. Although Plaintiff alleges that his efforts
to exhaust were thwarted, the record belies Plaintiff’s bare, unsubstantiated allegations that the
administrative grievance process was not available to him. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment (R. Doc. 53) should be granted, in part, as to all of Plaintiff’s claims except
for denial of attorney visits with Longman and Jacuback from August of 2022 through March 21,
2023.
Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel
and Access to the Courts
As to Plaintiff’s claim that he was denied attorney visits with Longman and Jacuback from
August of 2022 through March 21, 2023, a pretrial detainee’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel
Case 3:23-cv-00504-BAJ-SDJ Document 64 01/05/26 Page 6 of 10

is violated when visitation and/or communication with his counsel is impeded. See Owens–El v.
Robinson, 442 F. Supp. 1368, 1386 (D.C.Pa.1978) (“Inmates have a constitutional right, protected
by the First Amendment, to communicate with friends, relatives, attorneys, and public officials by
means of visits, correspondence, and telephone calls.”); Collins v. Schoonfield, 344 F. Supp. 257,
280 (D.C. Md.1972) (accepting the parties stipulations that: “The right to a fair trial and effective
assistance of counsel guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments extends to pre-trial
detainees. * * * Various conditions and practices having the practical effect of interfering with
these rights are unconstitutional including: (1) interruption of mail between attorneys and clients
* * *; (2) failure to provide a suitable visiting area for attorney visits * * *; (3) and failure to allow
inmates reasonable access to telephones for purposes of conversing with counsel * * *.”); Jones v.
Wittenberg, 330 F. Supp. 707, 719 (D.C. Ohio 1971) (“Prisoners who are serving sentence are
properly subject to some restrictions on communication, to the extent that this may be a desirable
form of punishment.... Obviously, however, prisoners who are awaiting trial are not to be punished
at all, except to the extent necessary to preserve order among members of a group living in close
quarters. Hence, prisoners awaiting trial may not be limited in their communications with persons
outside except to the extent necessary to prevent abuse of the privilege, or as a means of enforcing
discipline generally.”).
Though Defendant Alleman admits in her Declaration that she denied visits with attorneys
from Longman and Jakuback, it does not appear that she intentionally interfered with Plaintiff’s
right to counsel. Rather, it appears that Defendant Alleman was, at most, negligent. She
misinterpreted 	this 	Court’s 	Order 	disqualifying 	Longman 	Jakuback 	in 	Plaintiff’s 	federal
proceedings. Though she did ask an unspecified attorney with Longman Jakuback to provide
documentation that the firm was enrolled on behalf of the plaintiff in his state proceedings, it
Case 3:23-cv-00504-BAJ-SDJ Document 64 01/05/26 Page 7 of 10

appears she took no further action to ascertain this information such as calling the Tangipahoa
Parish Clerk of Court or following up on her request. Defendant Alleman’s actions do not evidence
an intentional interference with Plaintiff’s right to counsel, and claims of negligence are not
actionable under section 1983.
Furthermore, Plaintiff has not shown by competent summary judgment evidence that he
could not contact Longman and Jakuback by other means such as telephone, e-mail, or mail.
Plaintiff’s allegations that his other means of communication were inhibited have not been
substantiated. Additionally, Plaintiff was granted visits with Longman and Jakuback on March 21,
2023. The state court criminal hearing regarding revocation of Plaintiff’s probation did not occur
until May 9, 2023, over a month later. As such, Plaintiff would have had sufficient time to visit
with his attorney prior to the hearing. The failure of his attorney to arrange a visit during this time
was not the fault of Defendant Alleman.
To the extent Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Alleman’s denial of visitation from August
of 2022 to March 21, 2023 interfered with his right to access the courts, Plaintiff must be able to
show that has he suffered some cognizable legal prejudice or detriment as a result of Defendant's
actions. Eason v. Thaler, 73 F.3d 1322, 1328 (5th Cir. 1996). A review of the transcripts pertaining
to Plaintiff’s state probation revocation reveals that both Plaintiff and his counsel were able to file
motions seeking to have the proceeding dismissed. Plaintiff was represented by competent and
prepared counsel at the hearing who had the opportunity to argue the motion seeking dismissal,
cross examine witnesses, and present additional argument. Further, there appeared to be several
legitimate reasons for revocation of Plaintiff’s probation. As such, Plaintiff has not shown that his
probation was revoked due to the denial of attorney visits from August of 2022 to March 21, 2023.
Case 3:23-cv-00504-BAJ-SDJ Document 64 01/05/26 Page 8 of 10

In connection with his own Motion for Summary Judgment (R. Doc. 60) the Court notes
that Plaintiff has not filed or directed the Court to any competent summary judgment evidence
sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. In the context of a motion for summary
judgment, it is well-settled that a plaintiff may not rest upon mere allegations or assertions
contained in his Complaint in opposing a properly supported motion. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
supra, 477 U.S. at 324. Specifically, Rule 56 requires that, in response to such a motion, the
nonmoving party must “go beyond the pleadings and by [his] own affidavits, or by the
‘depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,’ designate ‘specific facts showing
that there is a genuine issue for trial.’” Id. Stated another way, in order to meet his burden of proof,
the party opposing a motion for summary judgment “may not sit on its hands, complacently
relying” on the pleadings. Weyant v. Acceptance Insurance Co., 917 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1990).
Plaintiff has not submitted an affidavit or declaration, nor is Plaintiff’s Complaint verified.
Plaintiff has also failed to direct the Court’s attention to specific evidence in the record which
demonstrates that he can satisfy a reasonable jury that he is entitled to a verdict in his favor.
Plaintiff instead relies upon the pleadings and the allegations therein.
Accordingly, there is nothing before the Court which tends to dispute Defendant’s
assertions. Based upon Plaintiff’s failure to designate specific evidence in the record of sufficient
caliber and quantity to create a genuine issue for trial, and failure to produce supporting evidence
on his own behalf, the Court concludes that Defendant’s motion is well-taken and that, on the
record before the Court, Defendant Alleman is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
Supplemental Jurisdiction
To the extent that Plaintiff’s allegations may be interpreted as seeking to invoke the
supplemental jurisdiction of this Court over potential state law claims, a district court is authorized
Case 3:23-cv-00504-BAJ-SDJ Document 64 01/05/26 Page 9 of 10

SCOTT D. JOHNSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
to decline the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction if a plaintiff’s state law claims raise novel or
complex issues of state law, if the claims would substantially predominate over the claims over
which the Court has original jurisdiction, if the Court has dismissed all claims over which it had
original jurisdiction, or for other compelling reasons. 28 U.S.C. § 1367. In the instant case, having
recommended dismissal of Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court further recommends that
supplemental jurisdiction be declined in connection with Plaintiff’s potential state law claims.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (R. Doc. 60) be denied,
and that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (R. Doc. 53) be granted, dismissing
Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Alleman for denial of attorney visits from August of 2022 to
March 21, 2023, with prejudice, and dismissing the remainder of Plaintiff’s claims, with
prejudice2 , for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. It is further recommended that this
action be closed by way of a judgment reflecting the foregoing.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on January 5, 2026.
2 Although dismissal for failure to exhaust may be without prejudice, the claims at issue have clearly prescribed. As
such, dismissal with prejudice is recommended.
S
Case 3:23-cv-00504-BAJ-SDJ Document 64 01/05/26 Page 10 of 10