James Sibley v. Devon King, et al. - Civil Rights/Excessive Force Order

Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

April 21, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

James Sibley v. Devon King, ET AL.

District Court, M.D. Louisiana

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 3:25-cv-00233

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (7)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JAMES SIBLEY (#464664) CIVIL ACTION NO.
VERSUS 25-233-BAJ-SDJ
DEVON KING, ET AL.

ORDER
Plaintiff James Sibley, who is representing himself and who is confined at the Louisiana
State Penitentiary in Angola, Louisiana, filed this suit on or about March 18, 2025, against multiple
Defendants.1 Based upon Plaintiff’s allegations, it appears he is attempting to make a claim of
excessive force.2 Plaintiff is seeking injunctive and monetary relief.3
In order to successfully plead a cause of action in a civil rights case, a plaintiff must
ordinarily state a set of facts that explains each defendant’s participation in the alleged wrong.4
The Supreme Court has held that “[e]ach Government official, his or her title notwithstanding, is
only liable for his or her own misconduct.”5 Plaintiff does not provide the details required to

1 R. Doc. 1. Documents in the court record are referred to as “R. Doc. __.”
2 R. Doc. 1, pp. 4-5.
3 R. Doc. 1, p. 5.
4 Jacquez v. Procunier, 801 F.2d 789, 793 (5th Cir. 1986). Though Plaintiff names multiple other Defendants, the only
Defendant who appears to have had a direct interaction with Plaintiff that could be construed as a constitutional
violation is Devon King. Plaintiff should be clear in any amended complaint what every other officer did that he
believes violated his rights. The Court also notes that though Franklin is named due to his supervisory role, such a
claim is unlikely to proceed. Supervisory officials may be held liable under § 1983 only if they affirmatively participate
in acts that cause constitutional deprivation or implement unconstitutional policies that cause the plaintiff’s injury.
Mouille v. City of Live Oak, Tex., 977 F.2d 924, 929 (5th Cir. 1992). If Franklin did not directly participate in the
alleged constitutional violation, Plaintiff must show that Franklin implemented an unconstitutional policy that was the
moving force behind the alleged constitutional violation. Thompkins v. Belt, 828 F.2d 298 (5th Cir. 1987).
5 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677 (2009).
analyze his claims. Instead of having his lawsuit dismissed at this time, Plaintiff will be given
another chance to provide facts that he believes support his claims, if possible.6 Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that, by no later than May 12, 2026, Plaintiff must file an amended
complaint on the standardized § 1983 lawsuit form (same form used previously), stating specific
facts to support his claims. In any amended complaint, Plaintiff must list each defendant

individually and explain what Plaintiff believes each defendant did (or did not do) that violated his
constitutional rights. Plaintiff is placed on notice that this lawsuit may be dismissed if he files
another § 1983 lawsuit stating only the bare assertions originally provided without providing
specifics as to how each defendant personally violated his constitutional rights or fails to file an
amended complaint. Plaintiff should review the attachment which asks him for additional
information to support the kinds of claim he seems to be trying to make.7 Plaintiff should answer
the questions in the attachment in any amended complaint. Plaintiff should be mindful in
describing exactly what occurred when excessive force was used, as indicated in the attachment,
as the circumstances surrounding the use of force will determine whether he states a claim.

Plaintiff is placed on notice that an amended complaint takes the place of the previous
complaint.8 His amended complaint will be the operative complaint for this lawsuit and must
include all defendants, claims, and facts. Plaintiff is instructed to place the cause number
“3:25cv00233” on the amended complaint and on all documents that he files in this lawsuit.

6 See Eason v. Thaler, 14 F.3d 8 (5th Cir. 1994). See also, e.g., In re Am. Airlines, Inc., Privacy Litig., 370 F. Supp.
2d 552, 567-68 (N.D. Tex. 2005) (“[D]istrict courts often afford plaintiffs at least one opportunity to cure pleading
deficiencies before dismissing a case, unless it is clear that the defects are incurable or the plaintiffs advise the court
that they are unwilling or unable to amend in a manner that will avoid dismissal.”).
7 The Court has only included an attachment for excessive force. If Plaintiff is attempting to make any other claims,
he should make that clear in his amended complaint.
8 Clark v. Tarrant County, Texas, 798 F.2d 736, 740 (5th Cir. 1986).
Plaintiff is also placed on notice that this lawsuit may be dismissed without further
notice if he fails to timely respond to this Order.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on April 21, 2026.

S

SCOTT D. JOHNSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE