# Williams v. Webre

> District Court, E.D. Louisiana · August 1, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10648347

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Louisiana
- **Decided:** August 1, 2024
- **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/10648347

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- applying Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services to a private prison

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
QUENTIN WILLIAMS CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 24-847
SHERIFF CRAIG WEBRE, ET AL. SECTION: “J”(5)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss (Rec. Doc. 19) filed by
Defendants, Juluette Henry (incorrectly identified as Julliette Henry),

Ashley Williams (incorrectly identified as Ashly Williams), Nicole
Celestine, Nikola LaCroix (incorrectly identified as Nikki Lacroix), and
CorrectHealth Lafourche, LLC (hereinafter collectively “CorrectHealth
Defendants”). Plaintiff Quentin Williams filed a response (Rec. Doc. 33), and
Movants filed a reply (Rec. Doc. 34). Having considered the motions and
memoranda, the record, and the applicable law, the Court finds the motion to dismiss
should be GRANTED.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The instant case arises from the medical treatment Lafourche Parish Jail
and 17th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Lafourche employees and
doctors provided to Plaintiff Quentin Williams between January 1, 2022 and
February 22, 2023. (Rec. Doc. 1-1). Defendant CorrectHealth, Lafourche, LLC
employed the other CorrectHealth Defendants, who are nurses and nursing

supervisors for the Lafourche Parish Jail medical department. Id. Williams states
that he was booked into the Lafourche Jail with a pre-existing dental problem
Williams alleges that Defendants denied him adequate medical treatment and access
to medical facilities, demonstrating deliberate indifference below the standard of care
for correctional medicine. Id. at 9. Specifically, Williams claims that, in January 2022,

someone (unnamed) at CorrectHealth noted dental pain and referred him to a
physician, Dr. Gore, who provided penicillin. Id. at 3. By July 2022, the pain spread
to his ear, and he was prescribed another antibiotic. Id. In August 2022, the tooth
was cracked and throbbing, and he was again given penicillin. Id. In October and
November, Williams complained of a headache, toothache, and infection, and he was
treated with clindamycin and ibuprofen. Id. at 3-4.

After being transferred to East Baton Rouge Prison for four days in November
2022, Williams claims that he was prescribed amoxicillin and other medications, but
he continued to complain of the tooth infection, and later recurrent dental pain and
sinus congestion. Id. at 4. He does not specify who prescribed the medicine or to whom
he complained. By December 2022, he had a pronounced abscess and was starting to
experience effects from the abscess: his throat was closing, he had a lump on his jaw,
he could not speak, and he was in severe pain. (Rec. Doc. 1-1, at 4) He informed the

CorrectHealth Defendants about the abscess. Id. A dentist, Dr. Crowley, then
prescribed him penicillin, even though Williams alleges that he told the dentist that
he was allergic to penicillin and thought he was having an allergic reaction. Id. at 5.
Williams alleges that he was never allowed to see a doctor for several months, and
his infection worsened. Id. at 4-6. Eventually he began having difficulty swallowing
and breathing, and an un-specified “on call provider” ordered prednisone and Tylenol
for him. Id. at 8.
On February 21, 2023, Williams fell asleep and found out he was rushed to the
emergency room when he woke up on February 22, 2023. Id. at 7. Later that day at

Thibodeaux Regional Health System Hospital, doctors found an extensive infection
with multiloculated abscesses and severe airway effacement. Id. Williams was placed
in a medically induced coma for 14 days, and then experienced double pneumonia as
a complication from the allergic reaction. Id. at 9. A few weeks after he was
discharged from the hospital, he returned with a pulmonary embolism, and he claims
he must now take blood thinners for the rest of his life. Id. Williams seeks damages

for the medical staff’s negligence over the course of this treatment and under the
theory of respondeat superior. Id. at 13-14.
Movants Henry, LaCroix, Celestine, and Ashley Williams are each employees
of CorrectHealth Lafourche and work at the LaFourche Parish Jail medical
department. Id. at 2. Plaintiff Williams alleges that they, along with CorrectHealth,
acted with deliberate indifference while providing medical care for him in the jail and
by refusing him medical care. Id. at 3. Specifically, he asserts a § 1983 claim against

the CorrectHealth Defendants in their individual capacities as well as a negligence
claim under state law. Id. at 9-14.
In the instant motion, the CorrectHealth Defendants contend that the claims
against them should be dismissed (1) because Plaintiff has not pled a valid individual
capacity claim against them because he failed to plead specific facts as to each
individual defendant; (2) because Plaintiff failed to submit evidence that he was
ignored, intentionally treated incorrectly, or refused treatment; and (3) because
Plaintiff’s state law claim is premature. (Rec. Doc. 19-1, at 3).
In opposition, Plaintiff contends that the Court should not consider the medical

records attached to the motion because the records were not cited it nor attached to
his complaint. (Rec. Doc. 33, at 2-3). Additionally, Plaintiff argues that movants’
summary of the allegations in the petition minimized the long delay and denial of
medical care that took place for two years, allowing his condition to deteriorate until
the brink of death. Id. at 3-4. Plaintiff also asserts that he did not improperly lump
in all of the CorrectHealth Defendants in his allegations against them, but that he

could amend the complaint with more detail as to each individual defendant. Id. at 6.
Next, Plaintiff argues that he can amend the complaint to add specific facts as to each
individual defendant, but that the complaint avers he was not consistently seen and
the CorrectHealth took little to no action, supporting his deliberate indifference
claim. Id. at 6-9. As to prior similar incidents, Plaintiff states that “it is no secret that
on January 25, 2024, Robert Barlow died of sepsis at Thibodeaux Regional after being
ignored at Lafourche Parish Jail, and likely by the same CorrectHealth employees.”

Id. at 10.
In reply, the CorrectHealth Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s medical records
are correctly considered as part of the pleadings on a motion to dismiss because they
are central to Plaintiff’s claim and referred to in his complaint. (Rec. Doc. 34, at 3-4).
However, even without the medical records, movants claim that the complaint alone
establishes that Plaintiff’s issue is the type or treatment provided, which is not a
basis for a § 1983 violation of a constitutional right. Id. at 4.
LEGAL STANDARD
To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must plead sufficient

facts to “‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
A claim is facially plausible when the plaintiff pleads facts that allow the court to
“draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Id. The factual allegations in the complaint “must be enough to raise a right
to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. “[D]etailed factual

allegations” are not required, but the pleading must present “more than an
unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
The court must accept all well-pleaded facts as true and must draw all reasonable
inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Lormand v. U.S. Unwired, Inc., 565 F.3d 228, 232
(5th Cir. 2009). However, “‘conclusory allegations or legal conclusions masquerading
as factual conclusions will not suffice to prevent a motion to dismiss.’” Beavers v.
Metro. Life Ins. Co., 566 F.3d 436, 439 (5th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted).

DISCUSSION
I. § 1983 Claim: Deliberate Indifference
In his § 1983 claim, Williams contends that Defendants “exceeded
constitutional limitations” by failing to provide adequate medical treatment. (Rec.
Doc. 1-1, at 9). Movants argue that Williams’s § 1983 claim against them should be
dismissed because (1) the allegations in the complaint establish that the
CorrectHealth Defendants were consistently attentive to his medical needs, (2) his
medical records rebut his claims, (3) the treatment and his disagreement with the
treatment do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation, and (4) Williams did

not adequately plead similar prior incidents. (Rec. Doc. 19-1, at 6-7).
“Deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical needs constitutes an
Eighth Amendment violation and states a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”
Jackson v. Cain, 864 F.2d 1235, 1244 (5th Cir. 1989) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429
U.S. 97, 105–07 (1976)). Deliberate indifference is an extremely high standard to
meet. Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 346 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal citation and

quotation marks omitted). The “official conduct must be ‘wanton,’ which is defined to
mean ‘reckless.’” Alderson v. Concordia Par. Corr. Facility, 848 F.3d 415, 420 (5th
Cir. 2017). “Unsuccessful medical treatment, acts of negligence, or medical
malpractice do not constitute deliberate indifference, nor does an inmate’s
disagreement with his medical treatment, absent exceptional circumstances.” Id.
Additionally, an incorrect diagnosis by medical personnel or the “failure to alleviate
a significant risk that [the official] should have perceived, but did not” are both

insufficient to state a claim for deliberate indifference. Johnson v. Treen, 759 F.2d
1236, 1238 (5th Cir. 1985); Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 838 (1994).
“[A]n inmate who has been examined by medical personnel fails to set forth a
valid showing of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.” Mickens v. Stalder,
2008 WL 544240, at *2 (W.D. La. 2008) (citing Norton v. Dimazana, 122 F.2d 286,
292 (5th Cir. 1997)). Instead, a plaintiff alleging a denial or delay of medical care
must show that the 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) (quoting Johnson, 759
F.2d at 1238). Moreover, “medical records of sick calls, examinations, diagnosis, and
medications may rebut an inmate’s allegations of deliberate indifference.” Banuelos
v. McFarland, 41 F.3d 232, 235 (5th Cir. 1995). Courts must examine each
Defendant’s actions individually. Baughman v. Hickman, 935 F.3d 302, 309 (5th Cir.
2019).

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to specify conduct by each of the CorrectHealth
Defendants and simply establishes that he disagrees with the treatment that was
provided—disagreement that does not amount to a § 1983 deliberate indifference
claim. The complaint states that movants Henry, LaCroix, Celestine, and Williams
“were each involved in the medical care and were each told over and over there was
an abscess that his throat. . . was closing and he could not speak, had a lump on his
jaw and was in severe pain. . .” (Rec. Doc. 1-1, at 4). The complaint states several

times that some number of unnamed CorrectHealth providers routinely evaluated
Plaintiff several times throughout the time period in question; provided him
Penicillin, Clindamycin, Ibuprofen, Amoxicillin, Tylenol, and Prednisone for the
dental issue; ordered a dental evaluation from a dentist; rushed Plaintiff to the
emergency room. Plaintiff’s own accounting of his treatment does not rise to refusing
to treat him, ignoring his complaints, intentionally treating him incorrectly, or
engaging in similar conduct evincing a wanton disregard to his serious medical needs,
as required to state a claim for deliberate indifference.
Additionally, Juluette Henry, Nicole Celestine, Nicola LaCroix are not named

in any factual allegation in the complaint. Thus, Plaintiff fails to allege any specific
conduct by Henry, Celestine, and LaCroix that could give rise to a constitutional
violation. Further, Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts to support a claim of
deliberate indifference against Ashley Williams. Plaintiff contends that Defendant
Williams advised him to finish his prescription for Penicillin because he had not had
problems before when taking the same drug. (Rec. Doc. 1-1, at 5). Plaintiff later

informed her that he was allergic to penicillin, but she recommended he finish the
prescription. Id. at 6-7. This instance demonstrates that Defendant Williams
observed and monitored Plaintiff’s condition, ordered medications, and neither
ignored nor refused to treat him. At best, Plaintiff alleges that the medical care
Defendant Williams provided may have been negligent or that he disagreed with the
providers’ choices, but these factual allegations against Defendant Williams do not
rise to the level of deliberate indifference. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims

against the Defendants Henry, Celestine, LaCroix, and Williams must be dismissed.
And finally, the § 1983 claim against CorrectHealth Lafourche, LLC must also
be dismissed. “The standards applicable to determining liability under § 1983 against
a municipal corporation are applicable to determining the liability of a private
corporation performing a government function.” Olivias v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 408 F.
Supp. 2d 251, 254-55 (N.D. Tex. 2006) (applying Monell v. New York City Department
of Social Services to a private prison), aff'd, 215 F. App'x 332 (5th Cir. 2007). As a
private LLC acting under color of state law contracting with the municipality to
provide medical services to prisoners, CorrectHealth Lafourche, LLC is treated as a

municipality for the purpose of § 1983 claims. Mixon v. Pohlmann, No. CV 20-1216,
2021 WL 6072501, at *14 (E.D. La. Dec. 23, 2021) (Morgan, J.). To establish municipal
liability here, Plaintiff must show “(1) that [the governmental body] violated
[Plaintiff’s] clearly established constitutional rights with subjective deliberate
indifference; and (2) that this violation resulted from a municipal policy or custom
adopted and maintained with objective deliberate indifference.” Id. at *16 (citing

Cadena v. El Paso Cnty., 946 F.3d 717, 728 (5th Cir. 2020)) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
For the same reasons that Plaintiff failed to state a claim against the nurses
named above employed by CorrectHealth, Plaintiff has also failed to establish that
CorrectHealth Lafourche, LLC violated his constitutional rights with deliberate
indifference in its provision of medical care to him. Further, Plaintiff’s complaint does
not allege that CorrectHealth, LLC had a policy or custom adopted or maintained

with deliberate indifference. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim against
CorrectHealth, LLC for municipal liability must be dismissed.
II. Individual Capacity Claims
Plaintiff also asserts claims against the CorrectHealth Defendants in their
individual capacities. However, Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations incorrectly lump
each of the CorrectHealth defendants together, making his claims insufficient to
survive the instant motion to dismiss.
Plaintiffs suing governmental officials in their individual capacities must
allege specific conduct giving rise to the alleged constitutional violation. Oliver v.

Scott, 276 F.3d 736, 741 (5th Cir. 2002). And plaintiffs must state separate factual
allegations specific to each Defendant, because “referring to the Defendants
collectively prevents the Court from drawing the inference that [one individual
Defendant] personally (or any other individual Defendant) acted with subjective
deliberate indifference.” Zavala v. City of Baton Rouge/Par. of E. Baton Rouge, No.
17-656 , 2018 WL 4517461, at *15 (M.D. La. Sept. 20, 2018) (citing Sanchez v. Young

Cnty., 866 F.3d 274, 281 (5th Cir. 2017); Hinojosa v. Livingston, 807 F.3d 657, 684
(5th Cir. 2015) (Jones, J., dissenting)); see also Phoenix ex rel. S.W. v. Lafourche Par.
Gov’t, No. 19-13004, 2020 WL 3269114, at *11 (E.D. La. June 17, 2020) (“Most of the
plaintiff’s allegations improperly lump the defendants together and fail to allege
which defendants knew of the substantial risk to the plaintiff and which defendants
failed to take reasonable measures to respond to the substantial risk of suicide.”).
Here, as the Court detailed above, Plaintiff has failed to specify factual allegations

specific to each of the CorrectHealth Defendants, and therefore the Court cannot
draw an inference that Henry, Williams, Celestine, LaCroix, or CorrectHealth
Lafourche, LLC acted with deliberate indifference in their provision of medical care
to Plaintiff.
III. State Law Claims
The CorrectHealth Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s state law claims against
them for medical malpractice should be dismissed as premature pursuant to
Louisiana Revised Statute 40:1231.8. (Rec. Doc. 19-1, at 17). R.S. 40:1231.8. provides
that a medical malpractice claim against a private qualified health care provider is

subject to dismissal on an exception of prematurity if such claim has not first been
presented to a medical review panel. Blevins v. Hamilton Med. Ctr., Inc., 959 So. 2d
440, 444 (La. 2007).
The parties agree that Plaintiff currently has a claim pending before a medical
review panel. (Rec. Doc. 19-1, at 17-8; Rec. Doc. 33, at 10). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
state law claims against the CorrectHealth Defendants are premature, because

Plaintiff must present them to a medical review panel prior to filing suit.
IV. Request to Cure the Complaint’s Defects
In his opposition memorandum, Plaintiff requests leave to amend with the goal
of curing the defects in his complaint. (Rec. Doc. 33, at 13). Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 15(a) provides the Court should grant leave to amend freely when justice
so requires. Leave to amend is not automatic, but a district court must possess a
“substantial reason” to deny a request for leave to amend. Halbert v. City of Sherman,

33 F.3d 526, 529 (5th Cir. 1994). To determine whether to grant leave to amend, a
court “may consider a variety of factors in exercising its discretion, including undue
delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failures to cure
deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing
party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, and futility of the amendment.” Jones
v. Robinson Prop. Grp., L.P., 427 F.3d 987, 994 (5th Cir. 2005).
Here, amendment of the federal claims in the complaint would be futile. As the
Court explained above, the facts underlying Plaintiffs allegations indicate that the
medical care Plaintiff received was not the result of deliberate indifference. In the
event that Plaintiff seeks leave to amend his state law claims, the Court would decline
to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims in light of the dismissal of the
federal claims. Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for leave to amend the complaint is
denied.
CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (Rec. Doc. 19) filed
by Defendants, Juluette Henry (incorrectly identified as Julliette Henry),
Ashley Williams (incorrectly identified as Ashly Williams), Nicole Celestine,
Nikola LaCroix (ncorrectly identified as Nikki Lacroix), and CorrectHealth
Lafourche, LLC (“the CorrectHealth Defendants) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs §
1983 claims against the CorrectHealth Defendants are DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs state law claims against the
CorrectHealth Defendants are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 1st day of August, 2024.
ly KP □
LXKS /
CARL J. BAR R
UNITED S DISTRICT JUDGE

12

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10648347. Public record. Not legal advice.