# Purvis

> District Court, W.D. Louisiana · May 7, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11356613

## Case

- **Full name:** Demond Isacc Purvis v. William Bennett, Et Al.
- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Louisiana
- **Decided:** May 7, 2026
- **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/11356613

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

MONROE DIVISION

DEMOND ISACC PURVIS CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:25-1764

SECTION P
VS.
JUDGE TERRY A. DOUGHTY

WILLIAM BENNETT, ET AL. MAG. JUDGE KAYLA D. MCCLUSKY

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Demond Isacc Purvis, a prisoner at Caldwell Correctional Center (“CCC”)
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this proceeding on approximately September 3,
2025, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He names the following Defendants: Sheriff William Bennett,
Warden Kevin Wyles, Deputy Warden Callender, and Major Frederick.1 For reasons that
follow, the Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s claims.
Background

Plaintiff claims that when he arrived at CCC, he asked “to see mental health” but a nurse
told him that the facility does not “have mental health on staff.” [doc. # 9, p. 3]. Plaintiff states
that he needs to see a licensed mental health doctor. Id. When he was incarcerated at Madison
Correctional, he saw a mental health doctor once each month. Id.
Plaintiff alleges that his mental health medications were changed. [doc. # 9, p. 3].

1 This matter has been referred to the undersigned for review, report, and recommendation under
28 U.S.C. § 636, and the standing orders of the Court.
Plaintiff names Sheriff Bennett as a Defendant because Bennett is “overseer of [CCC]
and everyone reports to him.” [doc. # 19, p. 1]. Plaintiff argues that it is Bennett’s “job to
ensure the safety of inmates and staff members . . . .” Id. He also appears to fault Bennett for
the lack of a psychiatrist or other mental health staff at CCC. Id.

Plaintiff claims that Warden Kevin Wyles is responsible for ensuring the safety of staff
and inmates at CCC. [doc. # 19, p. 1]. He suggestively claims that Wyles is also at fault for the
lack of mental health staff at CCC. Id.
Plaintiff claims that Assistant Warden Callender said he would transfer Plaintiff to
another facility to receive healthcare, but to date Plaintiff remains at CCC. [doc. # 19, pp. 1-2].
Plaintiff claims that Defendants Bennett, Wyles, and Callender failed to allow him to see
a licensed psychiatrist once each month. [doc. # 19, p. 2].
For relief, Plaintiff seeks: (i) a transfer to another facility; (ii) to enjoin CCC to hire a
licensed psychiatrist and social worker; and (iii) compensation. [doc. #s 9, p. 4; 19, pp. 2-3].
Law and Analysis

1. Preliminary Screening

Plaintiff is a prisoner who has been permitted to proceed in forma pauperis. As a
prisoner seeking redress from an officer or employee of a governmental entity, his complaint is
subject to preliminary screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.2 See Martin v. Scott, 156 F.3d
578, 579-80 (5th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). Because he is proceeding in forma pauperis, his
Complaint is also subject to screening under § 1915(e)(2). Both § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b)

2 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h), “‘prisoner’ means any person incarcerated or detained in any
facility who is accused of, convicted of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations
of criminal law or the terms and conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary
program.”
provide for sua sponte dismissal of the complaint, or any portion thereof, if the Court finds it is
frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or if it seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
A complaint is frivolous when it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.”

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A claim lacks an arguable basis in law when it is
“based on an indisputably meritless legal theory.” Id. at 327. Courts are also afforded the
unusual power to pierce the veil of the factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual
contentions are clearly baseless. Id.
A complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted when it fails to plead
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); accord Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A claim is
facially plausible when it contains sufficient factual content for the court “to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). Plausibility does not equate to possibility or probability; it lies

somewhere in between. Id. Plausibility simply calls for enough factual allegations to raise a
reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence to support the elements of the claim.
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556.
Assessing whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief is a “context-specific
task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.”
Iqbal, supra. A well-pled complaint may proceed even if it strikes the court that actual proof of
the asserted facts is improbable and that recovery is unlikely. Twombly, supra.
In making this determination, the court must assume that all of the plaintiff’s factual
allegations are true. Bradley v. Puckett, 157 F.3d 1022, 1025 (5th Cir. 1998). However, the
same presumption does not extend to legal conclusions. Iqbal, supra. A pleading comprised of
“labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action” does not
satisfy Rule 8. Id. A complaint fails to state a claim where its factual allegations do not “raise a
right to relief above the speculative level.” Montoya v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 614

F.3d 145, 148 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). “[U]nadorned, the-defendant
unlawfully-harmed-me accusation[s]” will not suffice. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677.
“[P]laintiffs must allege facts that support the elements of the cause of action in order to
make out a valid claim.” City of Clinton, Ark. v. Pilgrim’s Pride Corp, 632 F.3d 148, 152-53
(5th Cir. 2010). Courts are “not free to speculate that the plaintiff ‘might’ be able to state a claim
if given yet another opportunity to add more facts to the complaint.” Macias v. Raul A.
(Unknown) Badge No. 153, 23 F.3d 94, 97 (5th Cir. 1994).
A hearing need not be conducted for every pro se complaint. Wilson v. Barrientos, 926
F.2d 480, 483 n.4 (5th Cir. 1991). A district court may dismiss a prisoner’s civil rights
complaint as frivolous based upon the complaint and exhibits alone. Green v. McKaskle, 788

F.2d 1116, 1120 (5th Cir. 1986).
“To state a section 1983 claim, a plaintiff must (1) allege a violation of a right secured by
the Constitution or laws of the United States and (2) demonstrate that the alleged deprivation was
committed by a person acting under color of state law.” Whitley v. Hanna, 726 F.3d 631, 638
(5th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). Consistent with the standard above, a
“[S]ection 1983 complaint must state specific facts, not simply legal and constitutional
conclusions.” Fee v. Herndon, 900 F.2d 804, 807 (5th Cir. 1990).
2. Transfer

Plaintiff asks the Court to transfer him to a different facility. A prisoner, however, has no
constitutional right to be housed in any particular facility or transferred from one facility to
another, even if conditions and amenities in one may be preferable to another. Olim v.
Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245-46 (1983); Fuselier v. Mancuso, 354 F. App’x 49, 2009 WL
3780729, at *1 (5th Cir. Nov. 12, 2009). “The Due Process Clause does not, by itself, endow a

prisoner with a protected liberty interest in the location of his confinement.” Yates v. Stalder,
217 F.3d 332, 334 (5th Cir. 2000); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 225 (1976) (“[T]he State
may confine [a prisoner] and subject him to the rules of its prison system so long as the
conditions of confinement do not otherwise violate the Constitution.”).
Moreover, in Louisiana, “any individual subject to confinement in a state adult penal or
correctional institution shall be committed to the Department of Public Safety and Corrections
and not to any particular institution within the jurisdiction of the department. The secretary of
the department may transfer an inmate from one such facility to another, insofar as the transfer is
consistent with the commitment and in accordance with treatment, training, and security needs
established by the department.” LA. REV. STAT. § 15:824(A).

Here, as Plaintiff has no federal constitutional right to be transferred to, or confined in, a
place of his choosing, and because Plaintiff’s placement lies solely in the purview of the
Department of Public Safety and Corrections, the Court should dismiss his request for a transfer.
3. Major Frederick
Plaintiff names Major Frederick as a Defendant, but he does not set forth any allegations
against Frederick. A complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted when it fails
to plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S.
at 570. A civil rights plaintiff must support his claims with specific facts demonstrating a
constitutional deprivation and may not simply rely on conclusory allegations. Ashcroft, 556 U.S.
at 662. Here, the Court should dismiss Major Frederick because Plaintiff does not raise a claim
against him.
4. Compensation
Plaintiff claims that the remaining Defendants denied him medical care for his mental

health.
For relief, Plaintiff seeks compensatory/monetary relief. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e) provides:
“No Federal civil action may be brought by a prisoner confined in a jail, prison, or other
correctional facility, for mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior
showing of physical injury or the commission of a sexual act (as defined in section 2246 of Title
18).”
Here, Plaintiff does not allege that because any Defendant denied care for his mental
health, he suffered a physical injury. Plaintiff may not recover compensatory damages for his
mental or emotional injuries. See Edler v. Hockley Cty. Comm'rs Court, 589 F. App'x 664, 670
(5th Cir. 2014) (finding that the district court “properly dismissed [the plaintiff’s] claims of
inadequate psychological care because . . . he did not suffer physical injury.”).3 The Court

should deny this request for relief.

3 See also Powell v. Washington, 720 F. App'x 222, 229 (6th Cir. 2017) (“Powell claims that the
defendants were deliberately indifferent to his psychiatric or psychological needs by continuing
to confine him in administrative segregation despite his complaints that it was causing his mental
health to deteriorate. Powell has not alleged that he sustained a physical injury that resulted from
his confinement in administrative segregation; therefore, he cannot recover damages for any
psychological injury he allegedly suffered from his detention.”).
5. Americans with Disabilities Act
In his amended pleading, Plaintiff claims (in total) that Sheriff Bennett violated the
Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to provide mental health care for him. [doc. # 19, p.
1].

Plaintiff’s claim, however, is impermissibly conclusory. He does not supply enough facts
to state a plausible claim. Even assuming he has a qualifying disability under the Act, his claim
fails because he does not allege that any Defendant discriminated against him due to his
disability. See Hay v. Thaler, 470 F. App’x 411, 418 (5th Cir. 2012) (ADA and RA claims
require a showing of discrimination “by reason of [the plaintiff’s] disability”); Reed v.
Nacogdoches Cnty., No. 22-40126, 2023 WL 3563017, at *6 (5th Cir. May 19, 2023)
(“Assuming for the sake of discussion that Reed has a qualifying disability under the ADA and
the RA, his claims nonetheless fail because he has offered no evidence that the jail discriminated
against him because of his disabilities.”). The Court should dismiss this claim.
6. Medical Care

A plaintiff “must demonstrate that a government official was deliberately indifferent to ‘a
substantial risk of serious medical harm.’” Bailey v. E. Baton Rouge Par. Prison, 663 F. App’x
328, 330 (5th Cir. 2016) (quoting Wagner v. Bay City, 227 F.3d 316, 324 (5th Cir. 2000)). A
prison official acts with deliberate indifference to an inmate’s health “only if he knows that [the]
inmate[ ] face[s] a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take
reasonable measures to abate it.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994); see Reeves v.
Collins, 27 F.3d 174, 176-77 (5th Cir. 1994) (applying Farmer to a denial of medical care
claim). A plaintiff must establish that a prison official “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.” Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d
339, 346 (5th Cir. 2006).
“[N]either an incorrect diagnosis nor the failure to alleviate a significant risk that should
have been perceived, but was not, is sufficient to establish deliberate indifference.” Blank v.

Bell, 634 F. App’x 445, 448 (5th Cir. 2016). “Unsuccessful treatment, medical malpractice, and
acts of negligence do not constitute deliberate indifference; nor does a prisoner’s disagreement
with his medical treatment, absent exceptional circumstances. Moreover, a delay in treatment is
not unconstitutional, unless there has been deliberate indifference that results in substantial harm.
In short, [d]eliberate indifference is an extremely high standard to meet.” Id. (internal quotation
marks and quoted sources omitted); see Alton v. Tex. A & M Univ., 168 F.3d 196, 201 (5th Cir.
1999) (“Actions and decisions by officials that are merely inept, erroneous, ineffective, or
negligent do not amount to deliberate indifference.”); Frazier v. Keith, 707 F. App’x 823, 824
(5th Cir. 2018) (“The choice between forms of treatment is a classic example of a matter of
professional judgment and does not support a finding of deliberate indifference.”).

A. Deputy Warden Callender
Construing Plaintiff’s allegations liberally and in his favor, Plaintiff plausibly alleges that
he has a serious medical need for mental health care: he suffers from PTDS, depression,
nightmares and sleep apnea, and he physicians previously treated him for mental health needs
and proscribed Wellbutrin. [doc. #s 1, p. 4; 9, p. 3; 19, pp. 1-2]. And he plausibly alleges that
Deputy Warden Callender knew Plaintiff was (and is) exposed to a substantial risk of harm:
Plaintiff told Callender about his “mental issues,” and Callender acknowledged that Plaintiff had
a “righteous point” about requiring care. [doc. # 19, pp. 1-2]. In addition, Plaintiff plausibly
alleges that Callender responded to Plaintiff’s requests with deliberate indifference: despite
informing Plaintiff that he would transfer Plaintiff to a facility which offers mental health care
eight months ago, to date Callender has not transferred Plaintiff or arranged alternative care.4 Id.
Plaintiff, however, does not state a claim on which relief may be granted because he does
not seek cognizable relief against Callender. He asks this Court to order “Caldwell Correctional

Center [to] change how the mental health system is run by putting a licensed psychiatrist and
social worker on staff[.]” [doc. # 19, p. 2]. He also states that if CCC does not hire a psychiatrist
or social worker, he wants the Court to disallow CCC “to house prisoners with mental health
issues . . . .” Id. Plainly, he does not seek any relief against Callender. The Court should,
accordingly, dismiss this claim.
B. Sheriff Bennett and Warden Wyles
In short, Plaintiff suggestively claims that Bennett and Wyles failed to adopt a policy of
maintaining a psychiatrist or other mental health professional on staff to treat inmates for mental
health needs.
“Supervisory officials may be held liable only if: (i) they affirmatively participate in acts

that cause constitutional deprivations; or (ii) implement unconstitutional policies that causally
result in plaintiff’s injuries.” Mouille v. City of Live Oak, Tex., 977 F.2d 924, 929 (5th Cir.
1992). “Vicarious liability does not apply to § 1983 claims.” Pierce v. Texas Dept. of Crim.
Justice, Inst. Div., 37 F.3d 1146, 1150 (5th Cir. 1994). “‘[A] plaintiff must show either [that] the
supervisor personally was involved in the constitutional violation or that there is a sufficient
causal connection between the supervisor’s conduct and the constitutional violation.’” Brown v.

4 While Plaintiff has seen a nurse, he suggests that he did not receive any treatment from the
nurse because mental health assistance is unavailable at the facility.
Taylor, 911 F.3d 235, 245 (5th Cir. 2018) (quoting Evett v. Deep E. Tex. Reg’l Narcotics
Trafficking Task Force, 330 F.3d 681, 689 (5th Cir. 2003)).
Plaintiff does not allege that Bennett or Wyles affirmatively participated in any of the
above acts or omissions or that there was a sufficient causal connection between the defendants’
conduct and any alleged constitutional violation.5 At best, he alleges in his initial pleading that

he “wrote filed to the wardens no responded [sic].”6 He does not, however, identify what he
wrote or allege that either defendant ever received or viewed his filings. Consequently, he does
not plausibly allege that either defendant knew of a substantial risk of serious harm.7 See Ball v.
LeBlanc, 792 F.3d 584, 595 (5th Cir. 2015) (“[A] prison administrator who has received an
administrative remedy request is not necessarily made aware, without factual corroboration, that
there is a substantial risk of serious harm.”); Ornelas v. Hamilton, 2021 WL 4618465, at *2 (5th
Cir. Oct. 6, 2021) (finding that a defendant was not aware of an excessive risk to the plaintiff
where the plaintiff alleged that he sent letters to the defendant reporting abuse and asking for
help because there was no allegation that the defendant saw or received the letters).

5 See Dedrick v. Richards, 47 F.3d 425 (5th Cir. 1995) (“An official who is sued in her individual
capacity cannot be liable under § 1983 on the theory of respondeat superior; to be liable she
must have been personally involved in the plaintiff’s injury.”); Salcido v. Univ. of S. Mississippi,
557 F. App'x 289, 292 (5th Cir. 2014) (“To make out a § 1983 claim against the Defendants in
their individual capacities, Salcido must show that they were either personally involved in the
constitutional violations alleged or that their wrongful actions were causally connected to the
constitutional deprivation.”).

6 He does not mention these particular allegations again in either of his two succeeding
pleadings.

7 The undersigned previously instructed Plaintiff to, among other things: “explain when he
requested assistance from a defendant(s); explain what he told a defendant(s) or what he
requested; explain why he requested medical care (in other words, what were Plaintiff’s medical
needs/symptoms when he requested care?); and explain how a defendant(s) was deliberately
indifferent to a substantial risk of serious medical harm to him.” [doc. # 18].
Instead, Plaintiff essentially pleads only vicarious liability. For instance, he emphasizes
that he names Bennett as a defendant because Bennett is the “overseer” of the facility and
because everyone “reports to him.” [doc. # 19, p. 1]. He emphasizes that he names Wyles as a
defendant because Wyles is “the warden” and because his “job is to ensure the safety of staff and

inmates.” Id. See Thompkins v. Belt, 828 F.2d 298, 305 (5th Cir. 1987) (“[M]isconduct of
Sheriff Belt’s employees cannot be imputed to the sheriff individually . . . .”); Sanchez v. Moore,
2021 WL 5913305, at *1 (5th Cir. Dec. 14, 2021) (“His conclusory assertions that Sifuentes was
liable in his role as a supervisor because he did not get involved with the law library policies or
the issuance of a medical pass do not establish an affirmative participation in the denial of his
rights or the implementation of unconstitutional policies by Sifuentes.”). As above, vicarious
liability does not apply to Section claims. Pierce, 37 F.3d at 1150.
For claims of failure to promulgate policy, a “plaintiff ordinarily must show [a] pattern of
similar constitutional violations, because without notice of prior constitutional violations, a
supervisor can hardly be said to have acted deliberately indifferent.” Grant v. LeBlanc, 2022

WL 301546, at *5 (5th Cir. Feb. 1, 2022). Plaintiff here does not allege a pattern of similar
constitutional violations. He does not, for example, describe or elaborate on others’ similar
experiences.8 See Spiller v. City of Texas City, Police Dep't, 130 F.3d 162, 167 (5th Cir. 1997)

8 For conduct to be sufficiently widespread, it must have “occurred for so long and with such
frequency that the course of conduct demonstrates the governing body’s knowledge and
acceptance of the disputed conduct.” Webster v. City of Houston, 735 F.2d 838, 842 (5th Cir.
1984), on reh'g, 739 F.2d 993 (5th Cir. 1984). The pattern requires “similarity and specificity;
‘[p]rior indications cannot simply be for any and all bad or unwise acts, but rather must point to
the specific violation in question.’” Peterson v. City of Fort Worth, Tex., 588 F.3d 838, 851 (5th
Cir. 2009) (quoting Estate of Davis ex rel. McCully v. City of North Richland Hills, 406 F.3d 375,
383 (5th Cir. 2005)). “A pattern also requires ‘sufficiently numerous prior incidents,’ as opposed
to ‘isolated instances.’” Id. (quoting McConney v. City of Houston, 863 F.2d 1180, 1184 (5th Cir.
1989)).
(observing that a description of a policy or custom cannot be conclusory and finding the
following conclusory: allegations that a police department disregarded the rights of other African
American citizens); Clark v. Thompson, 850 F. App'x 203, 207 (5th Cir. 2021) (“‘I was treated
unprofessionally’ plus ‘eighty-two generic complaints’ does not equal facts that plausibly show a

single comparable incident that would support an inference of a specific custom of violating
constitutional rights.”).
Plaintiff also does not allege that Bennett or Wyles implemented an explicit
unconstitutional policy that deprived him of constitutionally adequate medical care. See
Alderson, 848 F.3d at 421.
The Court should dismiss these claims.
C. Changing or Stopping Medication
Plaintiff claims in his initial form pleading that his mental health medication was
changed. [doc. # 9, p. 3]. In his amended pleading, he alleges, “I have been taken off my mental
meds without seeing a psychiatrist . . . .” [doc. # 19, p. 2]. Plaintiff, however, does not specify

who changed or stopped his medication. Accordingly, the Court should dismiss this claim.
Recommendation

For the reasons above, IT IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff Demond Isacc Purvis’s
claims be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as legally frivolous and for failing to state claims
on which relief may be granted.
Under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Rule 72(b), parties aggrieved by
this recommendation have fourteen (14) days from service of this Report and Recommendation
to file specific, written objections with the Clerk of Court. A party may respond to another
party’s objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of any objections or
response to the district judge at the time of filing.
Failure to file written objections to the proposed factual findings and/or the
proposed legal conclusions reflected in this Report and Recommendation within fourteen
(14) days following the date of its service, or within the time frame authorized by Fed. R.
Civ. P. 6(b), shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking either the factual findings or the
legal conclusions accepted by the District Court, except upon grounds of plain error. See
Douglass v. United Services Automobile Association, 79 F.3d 1415 (Sth Cir. 1996).
In Chambers, Monroe, Louisiana, this 7" day of May, 2026.

Kayla Dye lusky
United States Magistrate Judge

13

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11356613. Public record. Not legal advice.