# Jones v. Gooden

> District Court, M.D. Louisiana · June 30, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11086944

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Louisiana
- **Decided:** June 30, 2025
- **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/11086944

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
WILLIE JONES CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
CHARLES GOODEN, ET AL. NO. 21-00372-BAJ-EWD
RULING AND ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment
(Doc. 106, the “Motion”). The Motion is opposed. (Doc. 109). Defendant filed a
Reply Brief. (Doc. 110).
On February 24, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a
Report And Recommendation (Doc. 112, the “Report”), recommending that the
Court deny Defendant’s Motion and dismiss Plaintiffs potential claim of deliberate
indifference to a serious medical need. (/d. at 2). Plaintiff filed a timely Objection to
the Report. (Doc. 118). Defendant also filed a timely Objection. (Doc. 114). For the
reasons outlined below, the Court APPROVES the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
ADOPTS it as the Court’s opinion in this matter.
I. BACKGROUND
This is an excessive force case brought by Plaintiff, an individual incarcerated
at the Louisiana State Penitentiary, against Defendant, a prison official. (See Doc. 1).
On June 20, 2020, after prison officials cited Plaintiff for a rule infraction,
Defendant brought Plaintiff to the Investigative Segregation Unit, where Defendant
ordered Plaintiff to submit to a strip search. (See Doc. 106-2 at 2; Doc. 106-7 [4 2-3;

Doc. 39 at 7; Doc. 106-3 at 9-12). Defendant contends that Plaintiff refused to comply
with orders multiple times and that Defendant deployed a chemical agent against
Plaintiff to gain compliance. (See Doc. 106-2 at 2; Doc. 106-7 4—7).
Plaintiff, in his deposition, testified that he complied with Defendant’s order,
but Defendant nonetheless deployed the chemical agent against him.
(See Doc. 106 - 3 at 12-14). In his Opposition, Plaintiff specified that he complied
with Defendant’s first order to submit to a strip search but turned around to face
Defendant when Defendant made repeated requests to submit to an additional strip
search. (See Doc. 109 § 4-10). Plaintiff also contends that Defendant sprayed him
with the chemical agent although Defendant knew that prison officials had granted
Plaintiff a medical duty status forbidding the use of chemical agents against him.
(See Doc. 39 at 8; Doc. 106-3 at 15-19).
Plaintiff sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking monetary damages from
Defendant in his individual capacity. (See Doc. 39 at 7). The Magistrate Judge
liberally construed Plaintiffs Complaint and determined that Plaintiff also brought
a claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need against Defendant.
(See Doc. 112 at 8).
Defendant moves to dismiss the case via summary judgment, arguing the
following: (1) Plaintiffs excessive force claim is barred by Heck v. Humphrey,
512 U.S. 477 (1994); and (2) Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.
(Doc. 106 {4 3-6).
The Report recommends that the Court deny Defendant’s Motion because

Defendant failed to produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Plaintiffs
excessive force claim is barred by Heck v. Humphrey. (Doc. 112 at 5). The Report
further recommends that the Court find that Defendant is not entitled to qualified
immunity because Plaintiff contests key facts regarding whether Defendant
maliciously applied force to Plaintiff in violation of the Cruel and Unusual
Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
(See td. at 5-8). Finally, the Report recommends that the Court find that Plaintiff has
not mustered sufficient evidence to support his potential deliberate indifference
claim. (See id. at 8-9).
Both Plaintiff and Defendant filed timely objections to the Report, discussed in
detail below. (Doc. 118; Doc. 114).
Il. DISCUSSION
Defendant’s sole argument in his Objection to the Report is that, based on
Plaintiffs admissions in his Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment, there is no genuine dispute of material fact. (See Doc 114). Defendant did
not object to the Report’s recommendation that the Court find that Plaintiffs claim
is not barred by Heck v. Humphrey. (See id.).
Plaintiff raised one argument in his Objection to the Report, contending that
the evidence previously presented together with additional new evidence is sufficient
to establish his deliberate indifference claim. (See Doc. 118).
The Court will address each argument in turn.

A. Defendant’s Heck v. Humphrey Challenge
First, Defendant initially contended in his Motion that Plaintiff could not
proceed with his claim against Defendant because the Supreme Court’s ruling in Heck
v. Humphrey precludes Plaintiff from doing so. (See Doc. 106-2 at 4—6). Under Heck,
an incarcerated individual may not “seek [] damages in a § 1983 suit” if “a judgment
in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or
sentence.” Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Defendant argued that because
Plaintiff was convicted of “defiance” and “aggravated disobedience” in prison
disciplinary proceedings based on the incident with Defendant, Plaintiffs claims
against Defendant are barred by Heck. (See Doc. 106-2 at 4-6).
The Magistrate Judge found, however, that Defendant failed to present
evidence of the elements of the offenses for which Plaintiff had been convicted in
prison disciplinary proceedings. (See Doc. 112 at 5). As such, the Magistrate Judge
could not find that Plaintiffs claim was barred by Heck v. Humphrey. (Id.). Defendant
did not challenge this finding. (See Doc. 114).
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) requires litigants to submit objections to a Magistrate
Judge’s report and recommendations within fourteen days of being served with a
copy. “[W]here, as here, [a motion is] delegated to a magistrate judge, and the
aggrieved party failed to file objections to the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation, despite being notified of the consequences of a failure to so object,
[the district court’s] review is for plain error only.” See United States v. Huerta, 770 F.
App’x 169, 169-70 (5th Cir. 2019) (citing Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Assoc.,

F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996), superseded by statute on other grounds,
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)).
Having reviewed the record, the Court finds no plain error in the Magistrate
Judge’s determination that Heck v. Humphrey does not bar Plaintiffs claim.
Therefore, the Court will APPROVE the Report and ADOPT the Magistrate Judge’s
finding that Plaintiff may continue to pursue his excessive force claim against
Defendant.
B. Defendant’s Entitlement To Qualified Immunity
Second, Defendant invokes qualified immunity as a defense to Plaintiffs
excessive force claim. (See Doc. 106-2 at 6-14). Defendant timely objected to the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the Court find that Defendant is not
entitled to qualified immunity. (Doc. 113).
To overcome a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must satisfy a “two-
prong test,” which consists of showing: (1) a constitutional violation under current
law; and (2) that the defendants’ actions were objectively unreasonable in light of the
law that was clearly established at the time of the actions complained of.
Club Retro, L.L.C. v. Hilton, 568 F.8d 181, 194 (5th Cir. 2009). In assessing a
defendant’s conduct under this test, the central concept is one of “fair warning,” or
that the defendant was given reasonable warning that the conduct alleged violated
constitutional rights. Jd. (quoting Kinney v. Weaver, 367 F.8d 337, 349-50
(5th Cir. 2004) (en banc)).
In assessing whether an official’s use of force violates the Cruel and Unusual

Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution,
“the core judicial inquiry’ ...[is] not whether a certain quantum of injury [has been]
sustained, but rather ‘whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or
restore discipline, or maliciously and_ sadistically to cause harm.”
See Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34, 37 (2010) (quoting Hudson v. McMillian,
503 U.S. 1, 7 (1990)).
The Report determined that there is a genuine dispute of material fact
regarding whether Defendant maliciously and sadistically applied force against
Plaintiff, because Plaintiff and Defendant’s account of events vary dramatically.
(See Doc. 112 at 7-8). In his Objection to the Report, Defendant argues that in
Plaintiffs Opposition, Plaintiff “admits that [sic] objected to and resisted orders from
Defendant to repeat portions of the strip search.” (See Doc. 114 at 1). Defendant
contends that because Plaintiff now concedes that “he was [sic] felt justified in
objecting to and resisting [Defendant’s orders] before [sic] chemical agent was used”
there 1s now no genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether Defendant’s use
of force against Plaintiff was justified. (See id. at 1—2).
Defendant essentially contends that Plaintiffs most recent account of events
as described in Plaintiffs Opposition is consistent with Defendant’s version of events,
such that a genuine dispute of fact no longer exists. The Court disagrees.
As previously noted, the Report found that Plaintiff and Defendant’s account
of events differed profoundly. The additional information provided in Plaintiffs
Opposition does not significantly alter Plaintiffs original account of the incident.

Plaintiff originally reported that he complied with Defendant’s first order to submit
to a strip search. (See Doc. 106 - 3 at 12-14). In Plaintiffs Opposition, Plaintiff
specified that he complied with Defendant’s first order to submit to a strip search but
turned around to face Defendant when Defendant subsequently made repeated
requests to submit to an additional strip search. (See Doc. 109 | 4-10).
In both instances, Plaintiff asserts that he complied with Defendant’s order to
submit to a strip search, which contradicts Defendant’s contention that Plaintiff
never complied with any of his orders until after Defendant deployed the chemical
agent. The question of whether Plaintiff ever complied at all is central to this case
because it will determine whether Defendant’s use of force following numerous orders
to submit to a strip search was justified. The drastically different accounts of the
incident necessitate the finder of fact at trial to resolve this dispute. Therefore, the
Court will APPROVE the Report and ADOPT the Magistrate Judge’s finding that
Defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity on his excessive force claim.
C. Plaintiff's Deliberate Indifference Claim
The Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff did not present any evidence of a
medical duty status preventing the use of chemical agents and that Defendant
affirmatively provided evidence that Plaintiff had no such medical restriction at the
time of the incident. (Doc. 112 at 8-9).
Plaintiff, in his Objection to the Report, provided additional medical documents
from Louisiana State Penitentiary and argued that these documents demonstrate
that Plaintiff had a medical duty status forbidding the use of chemical agents against

him. (Doc. 118). The documents provided, however, do not indicate that Plaintiff had
such a designation at the time of the incident. (See id.). Therefore, the Court will
APPROVE the Report and ADOPT the Magistrate Judge’s finding that Plaintiff has
not provided sufficient evidence to maintain his deliberate indifference claim.
III. CONCLUSION
Having carefully considered Defendant’s Motion (Doc. 6), Plaintiffs Opposition
(Doc. 109), Defendant’s Reply (Doc. 110), the Report (Doc. 112), Plaintiff's Objection
to the Report (Doc. 113), and Defendant’s Objection to the Report (Doc. 114), the Court
APPROVES the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and ADOPTS it
as the Court’s opinion in this matter.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion (Doc. 106) be and is hereby
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter be and is hereby REFERRED
to the Magistrate Judge for the issuance of a scheduling order.

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this me of June, 2025
Aca
JUDGE BRIAN A. JAGKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11086944. Public record. Not legal advice.