Ross v. Medical Staff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LAFAYETTE DIVISION

BRANNON JAMES ROSS DOCKET NO. 6:24-cv-1164

D.O.C. # 344515/001620839 SECTION P

VERSUS JUDGE S. MAURICE HICKS, JR.

MEDICAL STAFF, 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 Brannon James Ross on August 26, 2024. Doc. 1. Ross is an inmate in the custody

of the Louisiana Department of Corrections (“LDOC”), incarcerated at the Lafayette Parish

Correctional Center (LPCC) in Lafayette, Louisiana. 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

According to his complaint, on June 20, 2024, plaintiff was standing at the security door

attempting to get an inmate’s attention when inmate Detrvus Manuel squirted feces and urine in

his face, hitting him in the left eye. Doc. 1, p. 3. He informed the floor deputy of the incident and

asked to be seen by the medical staff and to file charges against Manuel. Id. Twenty-nine days

later, he was taken to medical. Id.

According to the Medical ARP attached to his complaint, he was seen by the medical staff

on July 19, 2024, at which time he was given an eye exam, an AIDS/HIV test and a Hepatitis test.

Id. at p. 5. He was also scheduled to see an eye doctor. Id. Plaintiff alleges that the incident

caused him to lose sight in his left eye. Id. He also complains that the delay in his medical

treatment was a result of his sexual orientation. Id. at p. 3.

Ross names as defendants the following: “Whoever is in charge of Medical Staff on June

20, 2024; (2) Ms. Sampe; and (3) “Whichever shift worked 3rd floor on June 20, 2024.” Doc.3 1,

p. 3.

II. LAW AND ANALYSIS

1. Frivolity Review

Ross was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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. Rule 8 Considerations

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.

Plaintiff should amend his complaint to comply with Rule 8.

3. Denial/Delay in Medical Care

With respect to his claim for denied and/or delayed medical care, plaintiff must amend his

complaint to provide more details. 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).

Moreover, a delay in medical care to a prisoner can constitute an Eighth Amendment

violation only if there has been deliberate indifference, which results in substantial harm. Mendoza

v. Lynaugh, 989 F.2d 191, 195 (5th Cir. 1993).

According to his Complaint, following the June 20, 2024 incident, Ross was seen by the

prison medical staff. He was given an eye exam, an AIDS/HIV test and a Hepatitis test and was

also scheduled to see an eye doctor. Therefore, he does not state a claim for denial of medical

care.

Ross’ main complaint appears to be that the delay in his medical treatment was a result of

his sexual orientation. “I feel to believe that because I am gay I did not get the same treatment as

a straight male would get.” Doc. 1, p. 3. However, the mere fact that Ross is gay is insufficient

to show deliberate indifference on the part of the staff. See Solis v. Barber, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

147916 (N.D. Tex., June 30, 2021). He should amend to allege facts to establish that the delay

was intentionally done to cause him harm and that the delay caused further harm to his eyesight.

4. Equal Protection

"To state a claim under the Equal Protection Clause, a § 1983 plaintiff must either allege

that (a) 'a state actor intentionally discriminated against [him] because of membership in a

protected class [,]'" Williams v. Bramer, 180 F.3d 699, 705 (5th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted), or

(b) she has been "intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated and that there is

no rational basis for the difference in treatment." Vill. of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564,

120 S. Ct. 1073, 145 L. Ed. 2d 1060 (2000). To the extent he seeks to make an equal protection

claim, Ross should amend to allege facts to establish a claim under the Equal Protection Clause.

III. CONCLUSION

Before this court determines the proper disposition of plaintiff’s 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)(i) 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 18th day of December, 2024.

CAROL B. WHITEHURST

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE