James v. Conn

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LAKE CHARLES DIVISION

TOBY RAY JAMES : DOCKET NO. 2:23-cv-299

D.O.C. # 424991 SECTION P

VERSUS : JUDGE JAMES D. CAIN, JR.

BRAD CONN, ET AL. : MAGISTRATE JUDGE KAY

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Before the court is a civil rights complaint (doc. 1) filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, by

Toby Ray James, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this matter. James is an inmate

in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Corrections (“LDOC”), currently incarcerated at

the Catahoula Correctional Center in Harrisonburg, Louisiana. He names the following as

defendants: (1) Warden Brad Conn; (2) Heather Patterson; and (3) Mike Martin. This matter has

been referred to the undersigned for review, report, and recommendation in accordance with 28

U.S.C. § 636 and the standing orders of this court.

I.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff complains that the Catahoula Correctional Center Medical Deputy, Heather

Patterson, stopped his medication and refuses to allow him to see a medical doctor. He alleges

that he was begin treated for a broken rib that is piercing his kidney. He also alleges that the

treatment he was receiving for a concussion has been stopped.

Plaintiff alleges that the warden has refused to intervene in the situation.

II.

LAW & ANALYSIS

A. Frivolity Review

James has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this matter. Accordingly, his

complaint is subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which provides for sua sponte

dismissal of the complaint or any portion thereof if the court determines that it is frivolous or

malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against

a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)–(iii).

A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Gonzalez v. Wyatt, 157

F.3d 1016, 1019 (5th Cir. 1998). A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted if it is clear the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of his claim that would

entitle him to relief. Doe v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 153 F.3d 211, 215 (5th Cir. 1998). When

determining whether a complaint is frivolous or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted, the court must accept plaintiff’s allegations as true. Horton v. Cockrell, 70 F.3d 397, 400

(5th Cir. 1995) (frivolity); Bradley v. Puckett, 157 F.3d at 1025 (failure to state a claim).

B. Section 1983

Federal law provides a cause of action against any person who, under the color of state law,

acts to deprive another of any right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution and laws

of the United States. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In order to hold the defendant liable, a plaintiff must allege

facts to show (1) that a constitutional right has been violated and (2) that the conduct complained

of was committed by a person acting under color of federal law; that is, that the defendant was a

government actor. See West v. Atkins, 108 S. Ct. 2250, 2254–55 (1988).

C. Rule 8 Considerations

Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a pleading to contain “a short and

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2).

Under Rule 8, the complaint must allege “sufficient facts from which the court can determine

the existence of subject matter jurisdiction and from which the defendants can fairly appreciate

the claim made against them.” Bynum v. Terrebonne Parish Consol. Gov’t, 2011 WL 6654985, at

*3 (E.D. La. Nov. 8, 2011) (citations omitted).

Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does not require explicit detail, but it does

require a plaintiff to allege specific facts which support the conclusion that his constitutional rights

were violated by each person who is named as defendant. This conclusion must be supported by

specific factual allegations stating the following:

(1) the name(s) of each person who allegedly violated plaintiff’s

constitutional rights;

(2) a description of what actually occurred or what each defendant did

to violate plaintiff’s rights;

(3) the place and date(s) that each event occurred; and

(4) a description of the alleged injury sustained as a result of the alleged

violation.

D. Supervisory Defendant

Plaintiff has named Warden Brad Conn as a defendant. It appears that he has named him

in his supervisory capacity. Plaintiff is hereby advised: “Supervisory officials may be held liable

only if: (i) they affirmatively participate in acts that cause constitutional deprivations; and (ii)

implement unconstitutional policies that causally result in plaintiff’s injuries.” Mouille v. City of

Live Oak, Tex., 977 F.2d 924, 929 (5th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 2443 (1993). “Vicarious

liability does not apply to § 1983 claims.” Pierce v. Texas Dept. of Crim. Justice, Inst. Div., 37

F.3d 1146, 1150 (5th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 1957 (1995). “Personal involvement is an

essential element of a civil rights cause of action.” Thompson v. Steele, 709 F.2d 381, 382 (5th

Cir.), cert. denied, 104 S.Ct. 248 (1983). In other words, to the extent that plaintiff seeks to name

supervisory officials as defendants, he must allege facts sufficient to demonstrate either personal

involvement or the implementation of unconstitutional policies by those defendants.

E. Vernon Parish Detective Mike Martin

Plaintiff names Vernon Parish Detective Mike Martin as a defendant. However, he fails to

allege any facts which support the conclusion that his constitutional rights were violated by Martin.

Plaintiff should amend to comply with the requirements of Rule 8, set forth above.

F. Heather Patterson – Denial of Medical Care Claim

Plaintiff claims that Heather Patterson has denied him medical care for his broken rib and

a concussion. The federal constitutional rights of an incarcerated person, whether he is a pretrial

detainee or a convicted prisoner, are violated only if his serious medical needs are met with

deliberate indifference on the part of penal authorities. See Thompson v. Upshur County, Texas,

245 F.3d 447, 457 (5th Cir. 2001); Harris v. Hegmann, 198 F.3d 153, 159 (5th Cir. 1999). On that

point, the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has explained:

Deliberate indifference is an extremely high standard to meet. It is

indisputable that an incorrect diagnosis by prison medical personnel does

not suffice to state a claim for deliberate indifference. Rather, the plaintiff

must show that officials refused to treat him, ignored his complaints,

intentionally treated him incorrectly, or engaged in any similar conduct that

would clearly evince a wanton disregard for any serious medical needs.

Furthermore, the decision whether to provide additional treatment is a

classic example of a matter for medical judgment. And, the failure to

alleviate a significant risk that the official should have perceived, but did

not is insufficient to show deliberate indifference.

Domino v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice, 239 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir. 2001) (quotation

marks, brackets, and citations omitted). "Deliberate indifference encompasses only unnecessary

and wanton infliction of pain repugnant to the conscience of mankind." McCormick v. Stalder, 105

F.3d 1059, 1061 (5th Cir. 1997); see also Stewart v. Murphy, 174 F.3d 530, 534 (5th Cir. 1999).

Plaintiff’s allegations herein are insufficient. He should amend his complaint to provide

the following:

(1) the type of treatment he was being given;

(2) the medication he was given;

(3) the date each medication was stopped;

(4) the treatment and medication he claims that he is entitled to;

(5) the injuries and the harm sustained as a result of the defendant’s

fault;

7. facts which tend to establish deliberate indifference on the part of

the defendant.

IV.

CONCLUSION

James must amend his complaint to address the deficiencies described above and to dismiss

the claims and parties that cannot be cured through amendment.

Accordingly,

THE CLERK IS DIRECTED to mail a copy of this order to James at his last address on

file.

IT IS ORDERED that James amend his complaint within thirty (30) days of the filing of

this order to cure the deficiencies as outlined above. Failure to comply with this order may result

in dismissal of the claims above under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See

Link v. Wabash R. Co., 82 S. Ct. 1386 (1962). James is further required to notify the court of any

change in his address under LR 41.3. Failure to do so will result in a recommendation that this

action be dismissed without prejudice.

THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Chambers this 1“ day of June, 2023.

ATHLEEN

UNITED STATES MAGIS TE JUDGE

-6-