Opinion

Everett v. Allen

Court
District Court, M.D. Louisiana
Filed
Aug 25, 2023
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 22.5%

The opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

MICHAEL S. EVERETT (#237136) CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

UNKNOWN ALLAN, ET AL, NO. 21-00638-BAJ-SDJ

RULING AND ORDER

On or around October 25, 2021, Plaintiff, a prisoner detained at the Elayn

Hunt Correctional Center, submitted a pro se Complaint alleging deliberate

indifference to his medical needs and various additional claims. (Doc. 1, see also Doc.

9). Plaintiff accompanied his Complaint with a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis,

(Doc. 2), which the Court granted on August 4, 2022. (Doc. 8).

On May 38, 2028, the Magistrate Judge issued a sua sponte Report and

Recommendation (Doc. 13, the “R&R”), recommending that Plaintiffs federal

claims be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A, and, further, that the Court

decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any potential state law claims.

(Doc. 13). Plaintiff objects in part to the R&R. (Doc. 14). In his objection, Plaintiff

clarifies that he seeks relief “against the defendants in their ‘individual capacity’ and

only for damages,” (id. at 2), and does not contest dismissal of his state law claims,

but insists that his individual capacity federal claims must survive.

Upon de novo review, and having carefully considered Plaintiffs Complaint,

Plaintiffs objection, and the related filings, the Court agrees that the pleadings, in

their current form, fail to state an actionable claim, even under the liberal standards

afforded to pro se litigants. Indeed, Plaintiffs Complaint is the very definition of a

“shotgun pleading,” aimed at more than 20 Defendants with barely an attempt to

explain what any Defendant did or did not do, and chock-full of conclusory, vague,

and immaterial facts not obviously connected to any particular cause of action. See

O'Neal v. Universal Prot. Serv., LLC, No. CV 21-00737-BAJ-SDJ, 2022 WL 1631970,

at *5 (M.D. La. May 23, 2022) (Jackson, J.). “Shotgun pleadings are pernicious

because they unfairly burden defendants and courts by shifting onto them the burden

of identifying plaintiff's genuine claims and determining which of those claims might

have legal support. ... The time a court spends managing litigation framed by shotgun

pleadings should be devoted to other cases waiting to be heard.” Jd. (quotation marks

omitted).

Still, the Court finds that not all of Plaintiffs claims should be dismissed with

prejudice. Stripped of superfluous detail, it appears that Plaintiff may yet state a

plausible Kighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to his medical needs.

Liberally construed, Plaintiff contends that in March and April 2021 he experienced

severe hemorrhoids which he reported to named Defendants (1) “Col. Brown,” (2)

“MSet. White,” (8) “Sgt. J. Jones,” (4) “EMT Gautreaux,” and (5) “MSet. Monyei,”

which ultimately resulted in “MSgt. Monyei,” declaring a “medical emergency.” (Doc.

1 at 6). Missing is any indication of what happened next. Was Plaintiffs “emergency”

treated, or left un-addressed? If it was treated reasonably, Plaintiffs claim for

deliberate indifference likely fails. See Campbell v. Brown, 756 F. App'x 386, 389 (5th

Cir. 2018) (affirming dismissal at summary judgment of plaintiffs claim of deliberate

indifference to his hemorrhoids where prison officials treated plaintiffs condition but

plaintiff disagreed with the method of treatment). If, on the other hand, Plaintiffs

complaints were ignored, or treatment was withheld or refused, Plaintiffs deliberate

indifference claim may yet succeed. See Marlowe v. LeBlanc, No. 18-cv-00063, 2023

WL 2957810, at *5 (M.D. La. Apr. 14, 2023) (Jackson, J.) (“Albeit a ‘demanding

standard, deliberate indifference is satisfied upon a showing ‘that officials acted with

malicious intent—that is, with knowledge that they were withholding medically

necessary care, by, for example, refusing treatment or ignoring a prisoner's

complaints.” (quoting Gibson v. Collier, 920 F.3d 212, 219-20 (5th Cir. 2019)).

In light of these unanswered questions, and because Plaintiff may yet plead an

actionable claim, the Court will not adopt that portion of the R&R that recommends

dismissal with prejudice of Plaintiffs hemorrhoid-related deliberate indifference

claim against Defendants (1) “Col. Brown,” (2) “MSgt. White,” (8) “Sgt. J. Jones,” (4)

“EMT Gautreaux,” and (5) “MSet. Monyei.” In all other respects, the Court will adopt

the R&R’s reasoning and analysis.

Accordingly, consistent with the reasoning set forth herein,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs hemorrhoid-related individual capacity

deliberate indifference claims against Defendants (1) “Col. Brown,” (2) “MSegt. White,”

(3) “Set. J. Jones,” (4) “EMT Gautreaux,” and (5) “MSegt. Monyei,” be and is hereby

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Plaintiffs right to submit an amended

complaint within 30 days of the date of service of this Order. Plaintiffs amended

complaint, if any, shall be limited to Plaintiffs individual capacity deliberate

indifference claims against Defendants (1) “Col. Brown,” (2) “MSgt. White,” (3) “Sgt.

J. Jones,” (4) “EMT Gautreaux,” and (5) “MSgt. Monyei” only, and shall address the

deficiencies set forth herein. Absent a showing of good cause, Plaintiffs failure

to timely submit an amended complaint will result in dismissal with

prejudice of Plaintiff's individual-capacity deliberate indifference claims.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, for the reasons set forth in the R&R,

Plaintiffs remaining federal claims and all Plaintiffs official capacity claims be and

are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, for the reasons set forth in the R&R, the

Court declines to exercise supplement jurisdiction over Plaintiffs over any potential

state law claims, and that any such claims be and are hereby DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action be and is hereby REFERRED

back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings consistent with the relief set

forth herein.

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 2s of August, 2023

Ba.

bao —

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.