# Fletcher v. Whittington

> District Court, W.D. Louisiana · August 19, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10195092

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Louisiana
- **Decided:** August 19, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10195092

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION

THOMAS B. FLETCHER, ET AL. CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-1153
VERSUS JUDGE S. MAURICE HICKS, JR.
JULIAN WHITTINGTON, ET AL. JUDGE KAYLA MCCLUSKY
MEMORANDUM RULING
Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment (Record Document 139) filed
by Defendant, Dr. Russell Roberts (“Dr. Roberts”). Dr. Roberts seeks summary judgment
as to all claims made against him by Plaintiffs Thomas B. Fletcher and Gail A. Osborne-
Fletcher (“Plaintiffs”). Defendant the Bossier Parish Police Jury (“the BPPJ”), the Bossier
Sheriff’s Office Defendants (“the BSO Defendants”), and Plaintiffs opposed the motion.
See Record Documents 191, 193, 198, & 201. Dr. Roberts replied to all opposition briefs.
See Record Documents 205-207. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion for
Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This is a federal civil rights action (and state law survival action and wrongful death
action) brought by Plaintiffs, who are the parents of the deceased, Collin James Fletcher
(“Fletcher”). See Record Document 217 (Second Amended Complaint). Fletcher was
arrested by the Bossier City Police Department on September 3, 2017. At the time of his
arrest, he was found to be in possession of approximately 202 Xanax bars. See id. at ¶
23. Fletcher was thereafter transported to the Bossier Maximum Security Facility, where
he remained until he was found dead in his cell during the early morning hours of
September 8, 2017. See id. at ¶¶ 165-172.
On September 3, 2017, Fletcher completed an initial Corrections Division Medical
Screening form and stated that he took 100 mg of Zoloft daily and Xanax nightly. See
Record Document 146-14 at 1. He answered in the affirmative that he currently used
benzodiazepines and that he had recently been under a doctor’s care for “psychiatric

anxiety.” Id. at 1-2. On September 4, 2017, Fletcher completed an Intake Medical
Screening Questionnaire with Nurse Katrina Chandler, RN (“Chandler”).1 See Record
Document 146-5. The questionnaire listed Fletcher’s current medications as Zoloft and
Xanax; noted he had a seizure disorder one year ago; and listed depression and anxiety
as his current mental health complaints/symptoms. See id. Chandler testified in her
deposition that during the intake screening, Fletcher told her he took “a lot” of Xanax and
that his past seizure was “probably” related to withdrawal. Record Document 146-18
(Chandler Deposition) at 25-26. Chandler put Fletcher on the mental health list to be
seen by psychologist, Dr. Anita Flye (“Dr. Flye”). See id. at 40-41.
In September 2017, a “Contract for Professional Services” between the BPPJ, the

BSO, and Louisiana State University Health Science Center (“LSUHSC-S”) was in place.
See Record Document 112-2 (Contract). Under the Contract, LSUHSC-S agreed to,
among other things, provide outpatient medical care at the Bossier Correctional Facilities;
provide clinical services at the Bossier Correctional Facilities; evaluate and treat inmates
for medical problems during clinic hours; provide medical services during clinic hours; and
assist in the review and update of policies and procedures for the Health Services Staff.
See Record Document 112-2 at 1-2. Pursuant to the Contract, Dr. Roberts – an employee
of LSUHSC-S – was providing on-site clinic service at the Bossier Maximum Security

1 Chandler is a BSO Defendant.
Facility, two days per week, half a day each day. See id.; Record Document 139-4 (Dr.
Roberts’ Affidavit).
There is a factual dispute as to whether Fletcher was Dr. Roberts’ patient. During
Fletcher’s incarceration, Dr. Roberts was on site for clinic services on the mornings of

September 5, 2017 and September 7, 2017. See Record Document 139-20. Dr. Roberts
contends that on September 5, 2017, he did not evaluate Fletcher and was not made
aware of his presence at the facility. See Record Document 139-4.
During the morning of September 5, 2017, Fletcher suffered an apparent seizure.
See Record Document 217 at ¶¶ 56-72. The Clinic Notes reflect the seizure, that Fletcher
was transferred to medical for observation for two hours, started on benzodiazepine
withdrawal protocol (hydroxyzine), and then released on 30 minute medical watch. See
Record Document 146-6 (Clinic Notes) at 1. Chandler and Nurse Katie Rachal2 both
stated in their depositions that Fletcher hit his head during the seizure. See Record
Document 146-18 (Chandler Deposition) at 48-49; Record Document 146-21 (Rachal

Deposition) at 30-35. Fletcher’s erratic behavior continued on September 5, 2017. See
Record Document 217 at ¶¶ 92-110.
On September 7, Chandler, Rachal, and Dr. Flye returned to Fletcher’s cell so Dr.
Flye could meet with him. See Record Document 146-18 at 92-93. Dr. Flye met with
Fletcher and requested the M.D. consider stat dose of Haloperidol (Haldol) and
Benzotropine and also consider starting Sertraline, the generic form of Zoloft. See
Record Document 146-28 (Flye Deposition) at 39. It appears that at least the Haloperidol
and Benzotropine were administered. See Record Document 146-18 at 92-93. Fletcher’s

2 Rachal is a BSO Defendant.
erratic behavior continued on September 7, 2017. Dr. Flye recalled “withdrawal
symptoms i.e. psychosis” hearing things, seeing things ‘paranoia’ he was very skittish
about people being around him and why they were there.” Record Document 146-28 at
38. She further noted confusion and depression. See id. at 39.

There are many factual disputes and discrepancies surrounding Dr. Roberts’
treatment of Fletcher, his knowledge of Fletcher’s medical history, and his knowledge of
Fletcher’s current medical condition on September 7, 2017. Dr. Roberts contends that
he was not made aware that Fletcher was an inmate until September 7, 2017, when
Chandler asked him to go see an inmate that had been placed on medical watch; had
undergone evaluation; was under the care of the mental health department. See Record
Document 139-4. On that same day, Dr. Roberts attempted to evaluate Fletcher, but
claims he was unable to do so. See id. Fletcher was never brought to clinic, but Dr.
Roberts attempted to go see Fletcher to do an evaluation. See id. Dr. Roberts claims
this was not achieved. See id. Dr. Roberts further contends that he did not authorize or

sign the hydroxyzine or haloperidol orders for Fletcher. See id.
Dr. Roberts submits that when he left Bossier Maximum Security Facility on
September 7, 2017, he was not under any belief or assumption that Fletcher was in a life-
threatening condition. See Record Document 139-4. Dr. Roberts stated in his affidavit
that when he left the facility on September 7, 2017, and until Fletcher’s death, he never
received any calls from Bossier Maximum Security Facility about Fletcher. See id. Dr.
Roberts stated that he found out about Fletcher’s death when he returned to the facility
for his next clinic the following week. See id.
Plaintiffs assert claims of constitutional violations against Dr. Roberts for deliberate
indifference pertaining to inadequate medical care of Fletcher, supervisory liability, duty
to intervene, and state law negligence claims. See Record Document 217. In June 2019,
this Court dismissed without prejudice Plaintiffs’ state law negligence claim against Dr.

Roberts, leaving only the constitutional claims. See Record Document 49. Dr. Roberts
now files the instant Motion for Summary Judgment and asserts he is entitled to dismissal
of the remaining Section 1983 claims as a matter of law. See Record Document 139.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
I. Summary Judgment Standard
Summary judgment is proper pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Quality Infusion Care, Inc. v. Health Care Serv.
Corp., 628 F.3d 725, 728 (5th Cir.2010). “A genuine issue of material fact exists when
the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.”

See id. “Rule 56[(a)] mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for
discovery and upon motion, 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.” Patrick v. Ridge, 394 F.3d 311, 315 (5th
Cir.2004). If the movant demonstrates the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact,
“the nonmovant must go beyond the pleadings and designate specific facts showing that
there is a genuine issue for trial.” Gen. Universal Sys., Inc. v. Lee, 379 F.3d 131, 141
(5th Cir.2004). Where critical evidence is so weak or tenuous on an essential fact that it
could not support a judgment in favor of the nonmovant, then summary judgment should
be granted. See Boudreaux v. Swift Transp. Co., 402 F.3d 536, 540 (5th Cir.2005).
II. Section 1983 Fourteenth Amendment Inadequate Medical Care Claim
In Count I of the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allege a Fourteenth

Amendment Due Process claim against Dr. Roberts. See Record Document 217 at 21-
25. More specifically, they allege Dr. Roberts provided inadequate medical care and was
deliberately indifferent to the serious medical needs of Fletcher. See id.
Fletcher was a pretrial detainee. Thus, the claim under Section 1983 for deliberate
indifference to Fletcher’s safety and serious medical needs is analyzed under the
Fourteenth Amendment. See Hare v. City of Corinth, Miss., 74 F.3d 633, 639 (5th Cir.
1996). “The episodic act or omission of a state jail official does not violate a pretrial
detainee’s constitutional right to be secure in his basic human needs, such as medical
care and safety, unless the detainee demonstrates that the official acted or failed to act
with deliberate indifference to the detainee’s needs.” Id. at 647–48. “Inadequate medical

care by a prison doctor can result in a constitutional violation for purposes of a § 1983
claim when that conduct amounts to deliberate indifference to the prisoner’s serious
medical needs, constituting the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Stewart v.
Murphy, 174 F.3d 530, 533 (5th Cir. 1999) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
Under the deliberate indifference standard, a prison official is not liable unless he knows
of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety. See id. at 534. Malpractice
or negligent care does not rise to the level of deliberate indifference. See id. “Deliberate
indifference encompasses only the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain repugnant
to the conscience of mankind.” Id.
Dr. Roberts moves for summary judgment on the inadequate medical care claim
on two grounds: (1) Fletcher was never his patient; thus, no patient-physician relationship
was established and there can be no claim against Dr. Roberts for inadequate medical
care; and (2) Dr. Roberts was not deliberately indifferent to the medical care of Fletcher.

As to the existence of a physician-patient relationship, the Court finds genuine disputes
of material fact that prevent resolution of the issue.3 At the outset, the Court notes that a
physician-patient relationship is not a necessary element to a federal constitutional claim
for deliberate indifference. See Rogers v. Hierholzer, No. SA-16-CV-01171-FB, 2018 WL
6933282, at *3 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 28, 2018) (“As this case involves an alleged violation of
Rogers’s Eight Amendment right to adequate medical care, rather than medical
negligence on the part of Dr. Smith, it is unclear to the undersigned why at trial Dr.
Mathis’s opinion with respect to the existence of a physician-patient relationship would be
relevant or assist the trier of fact.”). However, evidence regarding the creation/existence
of a physician-patient relationship is relevant to the highly disputed factual underpinnings

3 Dr. Roberts contends there was no physician-patient relationship because there was no
physical examination and no consensual transaction because Fletcher refused to see Dr.
Roberts. Dr. Roberts also contends he did not prescribe medication to Fletcher.
Conversely, the BPPJ notes that Dr. Roberts previously invoked the protections of the
Louisiana Medical Malpractice for State Services Act in this case, which requires a
physician-patient relationship. See Record Documents 29, 36, & 41. Moreover, Dr.
Roberts was the only doctor who saw patients at Bossier Maximum Security Facility’s
medical clinic. The BPPJ points to Dr. Roberts’ deposition testimony that he reviewed
Fletcher’s chart. See Record Document 132-3, Exhibit 68 at 3. Dr. Roberts admitted in
his deposition that Dr. Anita Flye could not prescribe medications and he “would have to
be the one to issue that.” Id. at 93. Here, there is no dispute that Fletcher was given
prescription medications, namely hydroxyzine, and haloperidol. Plaintiffs also point to
Fletcher’s signature on the Screening Form in which he authorized “the responsible
corrections physician (or his designee) to administer such medical examination or
treatment as necessary while I am incarcerated in this facility.” See Record Document
146-14 (Corrections Division Medical Screening).
of this case regarding medical treatment, including Dr. Roberts’ subjective knowledge and
intent, and is also necessary to determine if indemnification is proper under the “Contract
for Professional Services.”
The Court likewise finds summary judgment is inappropriate on the issue of

deliberate indifference. There are genuine disputes of material fact regarding Dr. Roberts’
knowledge of Fletcher’s serious medical needs, namely if Dr. Roberts knew of and
disregarded an excessive risk to Fletcher’s health. While not an exclusive list, there is
conflicting summary judgment evidence on the following issues:
• Did Rachel call Dr. Roberts to discuss her conversation with Fletcher’s
father and Fletcher’s apparent addiction to Xanax, such that Dr. Roberts
knew he had a patient who might be experiencing Xanax withdrawal;4

• Did Dr. Roberts review Fletcher’s medical chart;

• Did Dr. Roberts know that Fletcher had been taking Xanax and Zoloft and
had a history of psychiatric problems, anxiety, and depression;

• Did Dr. Roberts have knowledge of or believe that Fletcher had a seizure
on the morning of September 5, 2017;

• Did Dr. Roberts know that Fletcher was on a withdrawal protocol;

• Did Dr. Roberts authorize or sign off on prescription medications, such as
hydroxyzine, sertraline, and haloperidol, to be administered to Fletcher;

• Did Dr. Roberts conduct a neurological examination by speaking to Fletcher
for a minute or two while Fletcher was in a holding cell;

• Did Dr. Roberts observe erratic behavior or a medical emergency when he
saw Fletcher in the holding cell; and

• What did Dr. Roberts believe Fletcher’s medical condition to be when he
left Bossier Maximum Security Facility on September 7, 2017.

4 Rachal recalls that sometime after Fletcher’s reported seizure on September 5, 2017
and Dr. Flye’s evaluation on September 7, 2017, she received a call from Fletcher’s
father. See Record Document 146-21 at 80. The father informed Rachal that Fletcher
had issues with Xanax previously and had suffered from depression. See id. at 80-81.
All of these factual disputes go to whether Dr. Roberts gained actual knowledge of the
substantial medical risk of harm to Fletcher and disregarded that risk, that is, responded
with deliberate indifference. The credibility of Dr. Roberts is also at issue. Thus, summary
judgment is DENIED as to the Fourteenth Amendment inadequate medical care claim.5
III. Section 1983 Fourteenth Amendment Supervisory Liability Claim
In Count II of the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs assert a Fourteenth
Amendment supervisory liability claim against Dr. Roberts. See Record Document 217
at 25-26. Dr. Roberts has moved for summary judgment on such claim. Under Section

1983, an official cannot be held vicariously liable for the conduct of those under his
supervision. See Alderson v. Concordia Par. Corr. Facility, 848 F.3d 415, 420. A
supervisory official is only accountable for his own acts of deliberate indifference and for
implementing unconstitutional policies that causally result in the alleged injury to the
plaintiff. See id. A supervisor’s deliberate indifference generally requires a plaintiff to
allege at least a pattern of similar violations. See Rios v. City of Del Rio Texas, 444 F.3d
417, 427 (5th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted).
Here, Plaintiffs have offered no summary judgment evidence of a pattern of similar
violations. Moreover, “in order to establish supervisor liability for constitutional violations
committed by subordinate employees, plaintiffs must show that the supervisor act[ed], or

fail[ed] to act, with deliberate indifference to violations of others’ constitutional rights
committed by their subordinates.” Pena v. City of Rio Grande City, 879 F.3d 613, 620

5 In his motion, Dr. Roberts raises qualified immunity once: “prison officials are protected
by qualified immunity for medical treatment decisions, unless . . . .” Record Document
139-2 at 13. Without more, this Court will not address the applicability and/or availability
of the qualified immunity defense.
(5th Cir. 2018) (emphasis added), citing Porter v. Epps, 659 F.3d 440, 446 (5th Cir. 2011)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted, alterations and emphasis in original). As
argued by Dr. Roberts in his motion, he was not the employer of any of the staff at the
Bossier Maximum Security Facility. See Record Document 139-2 at 18. All of the

correctional officers and nurses involved in the events surrounding Fletcher’s death were
employed by the Bossier Parish Sheriff’s Office. See id. Plaintiffs have simply failed to
offer any competent summary judgment evidence to establish a supervisory claim against
Dr. Roberts. Therefore, summary judgment in favor of Dr. Roberts is GRANTED as to
the Fourteenth Amendment supervisory liability claim.
IV. Section 1983 Fourteenth Amendment Duty to Intervene Claim
In Count III of the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allege a Fourteenth
Amendment duty to intervene claim against Dr. Roberts. See Record Document 217 at
26. Dr. Roberts has moved for summary judgment on such claim. First, the Court notes
that Plaintiffs did not present argument or evidence on the failure to intervene claim in

their opposition to Dr. Roberts’ motion. Their failure to raise an argument in opposition to
summary judgment on this claim equates to waiver. See Indep. Coca–Cola Employees’
Union of Lake Charles, No. 1060 v. Coca–Cola Bottling Co. United, Inc., 114 F. App’x
137, 143-44 (5th Cir. 2004) (unpublished) (holding that party’s failure to raise an argument
in opposition to summary judgment waived the argument). Moreover, the failure to
intervene claim against Dr. Roberts fails as a matter of law. In a prison setting, the duty
to intervene encompasses a prison guard or correctional official’s duty to intervene and
attempt to end an assault on an inmate. See Coleman v. LeBlanc, No. CV 19-395-JWD-
SDJ, 2020 WL 4679545, at *5 (M.D. La. July 28, 2020), report and recommendation
adopted, No. CV 19-395-JWD-SDJ, 2020 WL 4680145 (M.D. La. Aug. 12, 2020). Such
a duty does not extend to medical officials in the prison setting. See Smith v. Donate, No.
4:10-CV-2133, 2012 WL 1899323, at *6 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 5, 2012), report and
recommendation adopted, No. CIV. 4:10-2133, 2012 WL 1899318 (M.D. Pa. May 24,
2012).6 Summary judgment in favor of Dr. Roberts is GRANTED as to the Fourteenth

Amendment duty to intervene claim.
V. State Law Negligence Claim
Dr. Roberts did not address state law negligence in his Motion for Summary
Judgment. However, the Court notes that in Count VI of the Second Amended Complaint,
Plaintiffs purport to assert a Louisiana state law negligence claim against Dr. Roberts.
See Record Document 217 at 29-31. However, as stated by Dr. Roberts in his motion,
Plaintiffs’ state law negligence claim against Dr. Roberts was dismissed without prejudice
on June 17, 2019, leaving only the constitutional claims. See Record Document 139-2 at
7; see also Record Document 49.7 Thus, to the extent necessary, the Court reiterates its

6 In Smith, the court held:

Here, it is undisputed that Dr. Zaloga is not an employee or correctional
official at this county prison. Rather, he simply is an independent private
contractor who provides medical services to inmates. As a private
contractor, Dr. Zaloga has no law enforcement or corrections standing,
status, responsibilities, duties, or training, and Dr. Zaloga is not authorized
by the warden to intervene in correctional matters such as cell extractions.
Given these undisputed facts, Smith’s failure to intervene claim against Dr.
Zaloga cannot prevail because the first essential element of that claim, a
legal duty to intervene, is simply absent. Therefore, this claim should be
dismissed with respect to Dr. Zaloga.

Smith, 2012 WL 1899323, at *6.
7The Court noted “the parties do not dispute that Fletcher’s state law negligence claim
against Roberts is covered by the LMMA [Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act].” Record
Document 41 at 4. Thus, finding that the Fletchers had failed to exhaust the procedural
prior ruling dismissing without prejudice Plaintiffs’ state law negligence claim against Dr.
Roberts.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Dr. Roberts’ Motion for Summary Judgment is
GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The motion is GRANTED as to the
Fourteenth Amendment supervisory liability claim and the Fourteenth Amendment duty
to intervene claim. The motion is DENIED as to the Fourteenth Amendment inadequate
medical care claim. Plaintiffs’ state law negligence claim against Dr. Roberts was
previously dismissed without prejudice.
IT 1S SO ORDERED.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED, in Shreveport, Louisiana, this 19th day of August,
2022.

S. MAURICE HICKS, JR., CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

requirements of the LMMA before filing suit, the Court held that the state law negligence
claim against Dr. Roberts was premature and dismissed such claim without prejudice.
See id.
12

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10195092. Public record. Not legal advice.