The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
SHAMEKA GRANT THOMAS ET AL CIVIL ACTION NO. 23-1614
VERSUS JUDGE EDWARDS
STUART WRIGHT ET AL MAG. JUDGE PEREZ-MONTES
MEMORANDUM RULING
Before the Court is a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by defendants
Michael Oliver, Tawana Bernstine, and Christopher Orsborn (collectively,
“Defendants”).1 Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the Motion.2
I. BACKGROUND
Carlos Thomas (“Thomas” or “Decedent”) became an inmate at the
Natchitoches Parish Detention Center (“NPDC”) on October 14, 2022.3 Kathy
Childress (“Nurse Childress” or “Childress”) conducted an intake screening of
Thomas and recorded his blood pressure of 151/106.4 Thomas did not report any
medical problems during intake.5
On November 9, 2022, Thomas reported chest and back pain.6 Lieutenant
Michael Oliver (“Lieutenant Oliver” or “Oliver”) and Deputy Tawana Bernstine
(“Deputy Bernstine” or “Bernstine”), who are employed by Sheriff Stuart Wright
(“Sheriff Wright”) at the Natchitoches Parish Law Enforcement District (“NPLED”),
1 R. Doc. 42.
2 R. Doc. 50.
3 R. Doc. 1 at ¶ 14.
4 Id.
5 Id. at ¶ 17.
6 Id. at ¶ 19.
were called to the L-dorm of the NPDC to assist Thomas.7 NPLED is responsible for
the operation of NPDC.8 Oliver and Bernstine reported Thomas’ complaint to nurse
Lisa George (“Nurse George” or “George”) who gave Thomas an ibuprofen.9 That
night, other inmates in Thomas’ dorm attempted to soothe his pain by applying
pressure to and massaging Thomas’ back.10 Sometime during that night, Thomas also
reported his chest pain to Christopher Orsborn (“Deputy Orsborn” or “Orsborn”),
another deputy with NPLED.11
On November 10, 2022, Nurse George gave Thomas a Tylenol and told him to
rest.12 Nurse George had Thomas place a “sick call” to explain what was ailing him
since he was scheduled to see a doctor that day.13 In the call, Thomas reported he had
“bad spasms, really, really bad!”14 Later that morning, around 10:00 a.m., Plaintiff
Shameka Thomas, having been advised of Thomas’ condition, called NPDC and spoke
to nurse Willie Clark (“Nurse Clark” or “Clark”).15 Nurse Clark then assessed
Thomas, palpating his back and ribcage and finding it tender to the touch.16 Nurse
Clark called Dr. Otis Barnum’s office, and Dr. Barnum (“Barnum” or “Dr. Barnum”)
ordered the administration of steroids and set an appointment to see Thomas after
lunch.17 Later that morning, Thomas was found unresponsive.18 EMS was called by
7 Id.
8 Id. at ¶ 5.
9 Id. at ¶¶ 20–21.
10 Id. at ¶ 23.
11 Id. at ¶ 24.
12 Id. at ¶ 25.
13 Id. at ¶ 26.
14 Id. at ¶ 27.
15 Id. at ¶ 28.
16 Id. at ¶ 29.
17 Id. at ¶¶ 29–30.
18 Id. at ¶ 31.
jail staff, and Thomas was transported to Natchitoches Regional Medical Center,
where Thomas was pronounced dead.19 An autopsy found that Thomas died from
“massive exsanguination due to aortic dissection.”20
Plaintiffs in this action are the surviving spouse of Carlos Thomas—Shameka
Grant Thomas—and his children—Devin White, Carnikqua Thomas, and Arniquia
Harden o/b/o minor child Carden Harden (collectively “Plaintiffs”).21 Plaintiffs named
NPLED, Sheriff Wright, Dr. Barnum, Oliver, Orsborn, Bernstine, Childress, George,
and Clark as defendants. Sheriff Wright, Childress, George, Clark, Bernstein, Oliver,
and Orsborn filed an answer in which they asserted qualified immunity.22 Those
defendants then filed a motion asking this Court to require Plaintiffs to file a reply
addressing qualified immunity under Rule 7(a),23 and the Court granted that
motion.24 Defendants filed the instant Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on June
30, 2024.25
The claims against Defendants are contained in Count I and Count IV of
Plaintiffs’ Complaint.26 Count I of the Complaint asserts that under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Defendants, in their individual capacities, violated Thomas’ constitutional rights
under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments by failing to provide prompt and
adequate medical care, despite knowing that Thomas faced a substantial risk of harm
19 Id. at ¶ 32.
20 Id. at ¶ 33.
21 Id.
22 R. Doc. 23.
23 R. Doc. 24.
24 R. Doc. 26.
25 R. Doc. 42.
26 R. Doc. 1 at 8–9;14–19.
from a hypertensive crisis.27 Count IV of the Complaint allege Defendants are also
liable for the wrongful death of Thomas under state law for their alleged negligence,
gross negligence, and reckless misconduct in failing to provide adequate medical care
and supervision.28 Plaintiffs also requested punitive damages be awarded.29
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c), “[a]fter the pleadings are closed—but early
enough not to delay trial—a party may move for judgment on the pleadings.”30 “A
motion brought pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) is designed to dispose of cases where
the material facts are not in dispute and a judgment on the merits can be rendered
by looking to the substance of the pleadings and any judicially noticed facts.”31
According to the Fifth Circuit, the standard for deciding a Rule 12(c) motion for
judgment on the pleadings “is the same as that for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss
for failure to state a claim.”32 In ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court
accepts all well-pleaded facts as true and views those facts in the light most favorable
to the plaintiff.33 Additionally, on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court is
generally prohibited from considering information outside the pleadings but “may
consider documents outside the complaint when they are: (1) attached to the motion;
27 Id. at 9
28 Id. at 14–16.
29 Id. at ¶ 68.
30 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c).
31 Great Plains Trust Co. v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., 313 F.3d 305, 312 (5th Cir. 2002)
(quoting Hebert Abstract Co. v. Touchstone Props., Ltd., 914 F.2d 74, 76 (5th Cir. 1990)) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
32 In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007) (citing Great Plains, 313 F.3d
at 313 n.8).
33 Midwest Feeders, Inc. v. Bank of Franklin, 886 F.3d 507, 513 (5th Cir. 2018).
(2) referenced in the complaint; and (3) central to the plaintiff's claims.”34 The Court
can also “take judicial notice of matters that are of public record, including pleadings
that have been filed in a federal or state court.”35 The Fifth Circuit has instructed
that when reviewing a Rule 12(c) motion, pleadings should be “construed liberally.”36
III. LAW & ANALYSIS
Defendants seek dismissal with prejudice of all claims against them in their
individual capacities. Defendants assert that: (1) they are entitled to qualified
immunity from the federal constitutional claims; (2) Plaintiffs are not entitled to
punitive damages because Defendants did not act with the requisite mental state;
and (3) they are entitled to immunity under La. R.S. 9:2798.1 from the state law
claims.37 The Court will address each argument in turn.
a. Qualified Immunity and Section 1983 Inadequate Medical
Care Claims
Defendants contend that all individual claims against them should be
dismissed because Plaintiffs fail to allege facts showing a violation of any
constitutional right or a violation of “clearly established” law.38
As previously noted, Defendants asserted qualified immunity in their answer.
Qualified immunity protects government officials from personal liability unless the
plaintiff establishes that: (1) the defendant violated the plaintiff's constitutional
34 Maloney Gaming Mgmt., LLC v. St. Tammany Parish, 456 F. App’x. 336, 340 (5th Cir. 2011).
35 In re American Intern. Refinery, 402 B.R. 728, 749 (Bankr. W.D. La. 2008) (citing Cisco Systems, Inc.
v. Alcatel USA, Inc., 301 F. Supp. 2d 599, 602 n.3 (E.D. Tex. 2004)).
36 Great Plains, 313 F.3d at 312 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
37 R. Doc. 42 at 3.
38 R. Doc. 42-1 at 12.
rights; and (2) the defendant’s actions were objectively unreasonable in light of clearly
established law at the time of the violation.39
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated Thomas’ constitutional right to be
free from “deliberate indifference” to his medical needs.40 Defendants argue that
Plaintiffs fail to meet the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis because they
have not demonstrated a constitutional violation.41
The Supreme Court has held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits “deliberate
indifference” to a prisoner’s medical needs, and the Fifth Circuit has extended this
rule to pretrial detainees under the Fourteenth Amendment.42 To establish such
deliberate indifference, a plaintiff must show that the defendant: (1) was “aware of
facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm
exists”; (2) subjectively “dr[e]w the inference” that the risk existed; and (3)
disregarded the risk.43
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs fail to satisfy the second and third elements.44
As to the second prong, the Supreme Court has emphasized that a “prison official
cannot be found liable” unless he or she “knows of” an excessive risk to inmate health
or safety.45 A failure to act “unaccompanied by knowledge of a significant risk of
harm” is insufficient to establish a constitutional violation.46
39 Porter v. Epps, 659 F.3d 440, 445 (5th Cir. 2011).
40 R. Doc. 1 at ¶ 37.
41 R. Doc. 42-1 at 14.
42 Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833–47 (1994)); Hare v. City of Corinth, 74 F.3d 633, 648–49 (5th
Cir. 1996) (en banc).
43 Cleveland v. Bell, 938 F.3d 672 (5th Cir. 2019) (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837
(1994)); also see Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 345–46 (5th Cir. 2006).
44 R. Doc. 42-1 at 13.
45 Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837.
46 Id. at 837–38.
Plaintiffs’ Opposition asserts that Defendants were subjectively aware of the
substantial risk of serious harm to Thomas.47 The sole support identified for that
assertion in the Opposition is that “despite observing [Thomas’] severe pain
throughout the night, [Oliver, Orsborn, and Bernstine] failed to secure the necessary
medical attention and failed to follow the ‘medical’ protocols established by [the
Natchitoches Parish Sheriff’s Office].”48 The Opposition does not identify the protocol
to which they are referring.
The record lacks any allegations suggesting that Oliver, Orsborn, or Bernstine
subjectively “drew the inference” that Thomas was experiencing a life-threatening
medical emergency. On November 9, 2022, at approximately 7:00 p.m., Bernstine and
Oliver were informed of Thomas’ complaints of pain.49 Fewer than five minutes after
receiving this complaint from Thomas, Oliver notified Nurse George who
administered medication and returned Thomas to his dormitory.50 Later that night
and into the early morning hours of November 10, 2022, Oliver, Bernstine, and
Orsborn observed Thomas in pain.51 When Nurse George returned for her shift at
4:59 a.m., Defendants described Thomas’ condition to her.52 Plaintiffs do not allege
that Defendants were medical professionals or that they had any specialized medical
training that would have allowed them to identify a hypertensive crisis. The facts,
taken as true, show that Defendants promptly reported Thomas’ complaints to a
47 R. Doc. 50 at 4.
48 Id.
49 R. Doc. 29 at 6.
50 Id. at 6–7.
51 Id. at 7.
52 Id. at 8.
medical professional, who treated Thomas and returned him to his dormitory. The
timing and sequence of events undermine Plaintiffs’ assertion that Defendants
possessed the requisite subjective knowledge. Defendants reported Thomas’
complaints promptly, relied on the judgment of a medical professional, and later
provided updated observations to Nurse George when Thomas’ condition did not
improve. Plaintiffs do not identify any facts indicating that Defendants knew or
should have known that the medical care provided was insufficient or that Thomas’
condition was life-threatening. The absence of allegations showing that Defendants
had actual awareness of a critical medical emergency is fatal to Plaintiffs’ claim under
the second prong.
Turning to the third prong, even if Defendants had such subjective knowledge,
the facts do not demonstrate that they disregarded the risk. The facts alleged reflect
that they responded reasonably by notifying a medical professional and following her
guidance. Defendants acted within minutes of Thomas’ initial complaint by
contacting Nurse George, who evaluated Thomas, provided medication, and
determined that he could return to his dormitory. When Thomas continued to
experience pain, Defendants again reported his condition to Nurse George at the
earliest opportunity during her next shift. Plaintiffs’ allegations do not suggest that
Defendants ignored Thomas’ condition or failed to take reasonable measures to secure
medical attention. Instead, the facts demonstrate that Defendants repeatedly
deferred to the medical judgment of Nurse George—a reasonable course of action for
detention officers without specialized medical training.
Given the lack of evidence that Defendants were subjectively aware of a
substantial risk of serious harm—and the lack of evidence that they disregarded such
a risk—Plaintiffs fail to establish a constitutional violation at the first step of the
qualified immunity analysis. As Plaintiffs have not satisfied the first prong required
to defeat qualified immunity, the Court need not address the second prong, and
Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.
Accordingly, the request in the Motion to dismiss the federal constitutional
claims against Defendants in their personal capacities is GRANTED.
b. Punitive Damages Claims
In their Motion, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs cannot recover punitive
damages against them because their allegations fail to show conduct that meets the
standard for such an award.53 Punitive damages may be awarded only when the
defendant's conduct “is motivated by evil intent or demonstrates reckless or callous
indifference to a person's constitutional rights.”54
Defendants assert that the facts show all Defendants took steps to report
Thomas’ medical complaints to Nurse George, and there are no facts to support they
were “motivated by evil intent” or acted with “reckless or callous indifference.”55
Plaintiffs make no argument in their opposition to address Defendants’ arguments.
53 R. Doc. 42-1 at 26.
54 Williams v. Kaufman County, 353 F.3d 994, 1015 (5th 2003) (internal quotations omitted).
55 Id. at 27.
Given the absence of any factual allegations suggesting that Defendants acted
with evil intent or reckless indifference—particularly in light of Plaintiffs’ failure to
respond—the dismissal of the punitive damages claim is warranted.
c. Immunity Under La. R.S. 9:2798.1 as to State Law Claims
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ state law wrongful death claims should be
dismissed because they are immune under La. R.S. 9:2798.1.56 Plaintiffs’ do not
address this argument in their Opposition.
La. R.S. 9:2798.1 provides that public officers are immune from liability for
policymaking or discretionary acts performed within the course and scope of their
duties.57 The statute excludes immunity for acts that are not reasonably related to a
legitimate governmental objective or that constitute criminal, fraudulent, malicious,
intentional, willful, reckless, or flagrant misconduct.58
The Fifth Circuit has held that dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate
based on an affirmative defense only if the defense appears on the face of the
complaint.59 Therefore, a court can dismiss claims if there are sufficient facts on the
face of a complaint to demonstrate entitlement to an affirmative defense.
The Fifth Circuit has expressly held that “the care administered and provided
to prisoners involves discretion.”60 In Rombach v. Culpepper, the Fifth Circuit found
that correctional officers’ actions in providing medical care to inmates were
56 R. Doc. 42-1 at 27.
57 La. R.S. § 9:2798.1(B)
58 La. R.S. § 9:2798.1(C).
59 EPCO Carbon Dioxide Prods., Inc. v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA, 467 F.3d 466, 470 (5th Cir.
2006); also see Alexander v. Verizon Wireless Services, L.L.C., 875 F.3d 243, 249 (5th Cir. 2017).
60 Rombach v. Culpepper, 2021 WL 2944809, at *10 (5th Cir. 2021) (internal quotations omitted).
discretionary under La. R.S. 9:2798.1 and did not amount to the level of misconduct
necessary to overcome immunity.61
Defendants argue that the alleged acts and omissions regarding Thomas’
medical care fall within the scope of their duties as jailers and therefore qualify as
discretionary acts under La. R.S. 9:2798.1.62 Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges that Oliver,
Orsborn, and Bernstine informed Nurse George about Thomas’ complaints of pain on
the night of November 9, 2022, and again on the morning of November 10, 2022.
Nurse George examined Thomas, provided medication, and scheduled him to see a
doctor the next day.
The facts alleged do not support a finding that Defendants’ actions were
unreasonable or that they constituted criminal, intentional, willful, or reckless
misconduct. The complaint shows that Defendants reported Thomas’ complaints to a
medical professional, who treated him and arranged further care. Plaintiffs’
allegations, taken as true, describe conduct consistent with discretionary medical
care rather than misconduct rising to the level necessary to overcome immunity.
Accordingly, this request in the Motion is GRANTED, and dismissal of
Plaintiffs’ state law wrongful death claims is warranted.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Michael Oliver, Tawana Bernstine, and Christopher
Orsborn’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (R. Doc. 42) is GRANTED.
Accordingly,
61 Id.
62 R. Doc. 42-1 at 28–29.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all of Plaintiffs’ federal claims against
Michael Oliver, Tawana Bernstine, and Christopher Orsborn in their individual
capacity, punitive damages, and state law claims are dismissed with prejudice.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED this 27th day of March, 2025.
pelea —_
JERR YEDWARDS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE