Granger v. Moneymaker

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LAFAYETTE DIVISION

ALAN M. GRANGER CASE NO. 6:23-CV-01182 SEC P

VERSUS JUDGE ROBERT R. SUMMERHAYS

SGT MONEYMAKER, ET AL MAGISTRATE JUDGE WHITEHURST

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Before the court is a civil rights complaint (42 U.S.C. §1983) filed in forma pauperis by

pro se plaintiff Alan M. Granger on August 29, 2023. Plaintiff’s claims arise out of an incident

that occurred at the St. Mary Parish Law Enforcement Center in Centerville, Louisiana, where he

is incarcerated.

This matter has been referred to the undersigned for review, report, and recommendation

in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §636 and the standing orders of the court.

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Plaintiff alleges that on July 21, 2023, he was attacked by prisoners James Jones and Mark

Hilliard while trying to break up a fight in the dorm. Doc. 1, p. 3, ¶ IV. Sgt. Moneymaker came

into the dorm with Lt. Shorday but didn’t detain Hilliard, who began to swing at plaintiff. Id.

Plaintiff contends that because the officers were scared to stop Hilliard, he was able to wrestle

plaintiff to the ground and break his hand. Id. Once he was ablet o get Hilliard off of him, plaintiff

was tazed by Moneymaker. Id.

Shorday took pictures of plaintiff’s hand, but never brought him to the hospital. Id.

In his request for relief, plaintiff states that he would like to be released or compensated

for his broken hand, hurt back, and heart pain. Id. at p. 4.

He names the following as defendants: (1) Sgt Moneymaker; (2) Lt. Shorday; (3) Unknown

Nurse; (4) Warden Nick Rogers; and (5) Capt Benoit.

II. LAW AND ANALYSIS

1. Frivolity Review

Granger was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis on December 7, 2023. Rec. Doc.

12. 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).

2. Failure to provide medical care

Plaintiff must amend his complaint to provide more details regarding his claim for denied

medical care. As a pretrial detainee, plaintiff's constitutional rights flow from the Fourteenth

Amendment Due Process Clause rather than the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and

unusual punishment. Because they have not yet been convicted of the crime with which they are

charged, pretrial detainees have a due process right not to be punished for that crime. Bell v.

Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979). The standard to apply in analyzing a denial of medical care

claim asserted by a pretrial detainee depends upon whether the claim is directed to a “condition of

confinement” or to an “episodic act or omission.” Scott v. Moore, 114 F.3d 51, 53 (5th Cir. 1997),

quoting Hare v. City of Corinth, 74 F.3d 633, 644 (5th Cir. 1996). Plaintiff’s complaint is directed

to an episodic act or omission.

Under the “episodic act” standard, “a state official’s episodic act or omission violates a

pretrial detainee’s due process right to medical care if the official acts with subjective deliberate

indifference to the detainee’s rights.” Thus, the plaintiff must show both that he suffered a

sufficiently serious deprivation, and that this deprivation was brought about by the deliberate

indifference of prison officials. Hare, 74 F.3d at 643 and 650. This is the same standard applicable

to convicted prisoners whose claims are analyzed under the Eighth Amendment.

In order to prevail on such claims, prisoner must establish that the delay in providing

medical care was “sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical

needs.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976). A showing of deliberate indifference with regard

to medical treatment requires the inmate to submit evidence that prison 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.’” Domino v.

Texas Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 239 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir.2001) (citation omitted).

To the extent plaintiff contends that he is in need of medical care, he should provide details

regarding his requests for treatment, what medical attention he has, or has not, received, from

whom, and the status of his health. He should allege facts to support a claim against each named

defendant for denial of medical care.

3. Supervisory Officials

Granger names as a defendant Warden Rogers and Captain Benoit, who appear to have

only supervisory roles. Vicarious liability does not apply in a Section 1983 suit, and so “the

plaintiff . . . must plead that each Government-official defendant, through his own actions, has

violated the Constitution.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1948 (2009). Granger must plead

adequate facts to support a finding of deliberate indifference for these defendants or dismiss his

claims against them.

Il. CONCLUSION

Before this court determines the proper disposition of plaintiffs claims, plaintiff should be

given the opportunity to remedy the deficiencies of his complaint. Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d

179 (5th Cir. 1985).

Accordingly;

THE CLERK IS DIRECTED to serve the plaintiff with a copy of this Order.

IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff amend his complaint within forty (40) days of the filing of

this order to cure the deficiencies as outlined above, and alternatively, dismiss those claims

plaintiff is unable to cure through amendment.

Failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of this action as frivolous

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(D or under Rule 41(b) or 16(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. Plaintiff is further required to notify the Court of any change in his address

under U.L.R. 41.3W.

THUS DONE AND SIGNED in chambers this 22nd day of April, 2024.

ntl X

CAROL B. WHITEHURST —™

A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE