“A prisoner does not have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in having ‘grievances resolved to his satisfaction.’”
How later courts described this case
- “A prisoner does not have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in having ‘grievances resolved to his satisfaction.’”
- “Section 1983 does not create supervisory or respondeat superior liability.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ELIJAH DESHUNN BROWN CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 24-0725
SHERIFF TURLICH OF PLAQUEMINES SECTION “E”(4)
PARISH, ET AL.
ORDER AND REASONS
Plaintiff Elijah Deshunn Brown filed a Second Motion to Amend Complaint (ECF No. 32)
seeking to add defendants Warden Denise Narcisse and Detective Sgt. Arena. Brown claims in
his original complaint he had not “alleged any action or inaction or other basis on which to hold
Defendant Denise Narcisse liable.” Id. at 1. Brown states in the motion that his claims against
Detective Sgt. Arena and Warden Narcisse are “not just a theory or respondeat superior” and how
he “advised the Defendant Narcisse personally about the unconstitutional conditions to which he
was exposed.” Id. Warden Denise Narcisse was named as a defendant in Brown’s original
complaint. ECF No. 10. All claims originally outlined by Brown against Warden Narcisse were
dismissed with prejudice via judgment following a Report and Recommendation by the above
Magistrate Judge. ECF Nos. 14, 15. Brown also filed a previous Motion to Amend Complaint
where he sought to add Detective Sgt. Arena as a defendant that was subsequently denied. ECF
Nos. 28, 31.
I. Standards of Review
Generally, Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 15(a) governs the amendment of pleadings before trial. Rule
15(a)(2) allows a party to amend its pleadings “only with the other party’s written consent or the
court’s leave.” “Rule 15(a) requires a trial court ‘to grant leave to amend freely,’ and the language
of this rule ‘evinces a bias in favor of granting leave to amend.’” Jones v. Robinson Prop. Grp.,
427 F.3d 987, 994 (5th Cir. 2005) (internal quotations marks omitted) (quoting Lyn-Lea Travel
Corp. v. American Airlines, 283 F.3d 282, 286 (5th Cir. 2002)). Moreover, the Rule urges that the
Court “should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Id.
In taking this liberal approach, the Rule “reject[s] the approach that pleading is a game of
skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that
the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits.” Conley v. Gibson, 355
U.S. 41, 48 (1957). When addressing a motion to amend, the court must have a “substantial
reason” considering such factors as “‘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 . . . and futility of the amendment.’” Marucci Sports, LLC v. Nat’l Collegiate
Athletic Ass’n, 751 F.3d 368, 378 (5th Cir. 2014) (quoting Jones, 427 F.3d at 994). An amendment
is deemed to be futile if it would be dismissed under a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Id. (citing Briggs v.
Miss., 331 F.3d 499, 508 (5th Cir. 2003)).
II. Discussion
As background, and to give perspective to the proposed amendments, Brown claims in his
Complaint that he is a federal inmate awaiting charges in the Western District of Louisiana but
housed in Plaquemines Parish for medical care purposes. ECF No. 10-1, at 1. He filed this in
forma pauperis complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants Plaquemines Parish
Sheriff Turlich, Warden Denise Narcisse, Lt. Ashton Paxton, and Deputy Robin (now identified
as Deputy Darrin Robin). ECF No. 10, ¶III(B)-(E), at 5. He complained that he was held in his
cell for seven days without shower access and is being fed a food loaf. Brown further complains
that on February 12, 2024, he was beaten by defendants Lt. Paxton and Deputy Robin after he
complained about the conditions of his confinement.
2
On June 17, 2024, the undersigned Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation
recommending that Brown’s claims challenging the conditions of confinement in administrative
lockdown and his claims, if any, against Sheriff Turlich and Warden Narcisse be dismissed under
28 U.S.C. § 1915 and § 1915A as frivolous and otherwise for failure to state a claim for which
relief can be granted. ECF No. 13, at 6, 11. The Court further recommended that Brown’s claims
of excessive force against Lt. Paxton and Deputy Robin on February 12, 2024, be allowed to
proceed forward. Id. at 13. The District Judge adopted these recommendations and has since
issued Judgment dismissing the conditions of confinement claims and defendants Sheriff Turlich
and Warden Narcisse. ECF Nos. 14, 15.
On November 11, 2024, Brown filed a Motion to Amend Complaint seeking to replace (or
dismiss) Sheriff Turlich and name as a defendant in his place the Plaquemines Parish Sheriff’s
Department. ECF No. 28 at 1. That request was deemed futile because Sheriff Turlich was no
longer a defendant in this case because he was dismissed by Judgment entered August 13, 2024.
ECF No. 31 at 3. Second, it was established that Brown could not add the Plaquemines Parish
Sheriff’s Department because is not a person or suable entity for purposes of § 1983. Id.
Additionally, Brown sought to add as a defendant Detective Sgt. Arena, whom he claims oversees
his confinement with Warden Narcisse. This request was deemed futile as any claim against
Detective Sgt. Arena would be frivolous for the same reasons underlying the prior dismissal of
any claims against Warden Narcisse. Specifically, supervisory officials like the Detective and
Warden Narcisse, cannot be held responsible pursuant to § 1983 under any theory of respondeat
superior or simply because an employee or subordinate allegedly violated the plaintiff’s
constitutional rights. Id. at 4. For those reasons, Brown’s Motion to Amend Complaint was denied
on December 11, 2024. Id. at 5.
3
On January 16, 2025, Brown filed a second motion to amend the complaint. ECF No. 32.
In his motion, Brown seeks to add Warden Denise Narcisse and Detective Sgt. Arena as
defendants. This request is futile as any claim against Warden Denise Narcisse or Detective Sgt.
Arena would be frivolous for the same reasons underlying the prior dismissal of any claims against
both individuals. A defendant is liable under § 1983 only if he or she had personal involvement in
the alleged unconstitutional act. Douthit v. Jones, 641 F.2d 345, 346 (5th Cir. 1981). Brown claims
both Warden Narcisse and Detective Sgt. Arena have personal involvement in the alleged
unconstitutional act by being placed on notice of the abusive conduct of other defendants via the
filing of “a number of complaints and grievances.” ECF No. 32 at 7.
As previously stated, supervisory officials like the Detective and Warden Narcisse, cannot
be held responsible pursuant to § 1983 under any theory of respondeat superior or simply because
an employee or subordinate allegedly violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Alton v.
Tex. A&M Univ., 168 F.3d 196, 200 (5th Cir. 1999); see also, Oliver v. Scott, 276 F.3d 736, 742
(5th Cir. 2002) (“Section 1983 does not create supervisory or respondeat superior liability.”). The
Warden and Detective cannot be held under § 1983 simply because they “oversee” Brown’s
confinement.
The fact that Brown claims to have filed grievance complaints at the prison to which he
may have received an unfavorable response from the Warden or Detective does not render either
official liable under § 1983. Bonneville v. Basse, 536 F. App’x 502, 503 (5th Cir. 2013) ( “A
prisoner does not have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in having ‘grievances resolved
to his satisfaction.’”) (quoting Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 374 (5th Cir. 2005)); Propes v.
Mays, 169 F. App’x 183, 184-85 (5th Cir. 2006) (same). In summary, Brown has not alleged a
personal action or connection that would render Warden Narcisse or Detective Sgt. Arena liable
4
under § 1983 or liable for the actions or inactions of other subordinate prison personnel. To include
Warden Narcisse and Detective Sgt. Arena as a defendant in this way would be frivolous under §
1915 and § 1915A, and therefore, renders the amendment futile.
Considering Rule 15(a), the previously filed motion to amend complaint, and the relevant
factors identified above, the Court finds no good cause to allow Brown to amend his complaint to
add additional defendants. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that John Elijah Deshunn Brown’s Second Motion to Amend
Complaint (ECF No. 32) is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 19thtay of February, 2025.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRAT GE