Mealey v. Gautreaux
| Decision Date | 31 January 2020 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL NO. 16-716-JWD-RLB |
| Parties | SHERMAN MEALEY v. SID J. GAUTREAUX, III AND THE CITY/PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Louisiana |
This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the City/Parish of East Baton Rouge ("City/Parish"). (Doc. 122.) In response, Sherman Mealey ("Mr. Mealey" or "Plaintiff") filed Plaintiff's Opposition to the City/Parish's Motion for Summary Judgment ("Response to City/Parish"). (Doc. 148.) Also, before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Sheriff Sid J. Gautreaux, III, ("Sheriff"). (Doc. 132.)1 In response, Plaintiff filed Plaintiff's Opposition to the Sheriff's Motion for Summary Judgment ("Response to Sheriff"). (Doc. 150.) The Sheriff filed a Reply Memorandum in Support of Sheriff's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 157.) Plaintiff filed a Sur-Reply in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition Memorandum. (Doc. 159.) The Court held oral argument on the City/Parish's and the Sheriff's Motions for Summary Judgment. Having considered the facts, the arguments raised by the parties, and the law, the Court will
DENY IN PART the Sheriff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 132 and Doc. 129) as to the claim against the Sheriff in his official capacity pursuant to the ADA and the RA; and
GRANT IN PART the Sheriff's Motion for Summary in part to claim against the Sheriff pursuant to § 1983 in his official capacity.
Plaintiff, Mr. Mealey is a paraplegic, who is unable to walk, stand, or use his legs without assistance and requires a wheelchair for his primary means of mobility. (Mealey Dep., Doc. 150-34, at 19:10-12, 30:3-8.) As a paraplegic, Mr. Mealey has a qualified disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Mr. Mealey was first incarcerated in 2012 ("2012 Incarceration") at the East Baton Rouge Parish Prison ("Prison"). Mr. Mealey was also incarcerated at the Prison from August 10, 2015 to October 24, 2016 ("2015 Incarceration"). Plaintiff sued the Sheriff and the City/Parish (together, "Defendants") alleging that during his 2015 Incarceration Defendants violated the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act ("RA") as well as his constitutional rights pursuant to § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that due to his paraplegic condition, he requires specific accommodations, and that the City and the Sheriff impermissibly denied his requests for those accommodations. These accommodations include but are not limited to: (1) access to a shower chair; (2) materials to elevate his feet to reduce swelling; (3) catheters to help him urinate; and (4) suppositories to help him defecate. Plaintiff alleges that as a result of the lack of accommodation he has suffered: (a) swollen legs; (b) bedsores and infections; (c) urinary track infections; (d) lack of personal hygiene; (e) personal humiliation, disgrace and embarrassment; (f) invasion of privacy through the unwanted touching by other inmates; (g) sleep deprivation; and (h) invasion of his civil rights.
The Sheriff and the City/Parish are public entities subject to the obligations in the ADA and the RA. As discussed in more detail below, under Louisiana law the Sheriff is the politicalentity responsible for keeping and operating the Prison and therefore "seeing to it that the prisoners are properly cared for, fed and clothed." Amiss v. Dumas, 411 So. 2d 1137, 1141 (La. 1st Cir. Ct. App. 1982), writ denied, 415 So. 2d 940 (La. 1982). Conversely, under Louisiana law the City/Parish owns the prison and is responsible for funding "the expenses of establishing, maintaining and operating the jail and for all the expenses of feeding, clothing, and providing medical treatment to the prisoners." Id. During Mr. Mealey's 2015 Incarceration, the City/Parish, acting through the Baton Rouge Metropolitan Council and its Emergency Medical Services Department and the Prison Medical Services Division ("Prison Medical Services"), to provide medical treatment to inmates in the prison. Prison Medical Services began providing treatment following the closure of the Earl K Long Medical Center around 2014. (Doc. 132-6.) For an average daily population of over 1550 inmates, Prison Medical Services employed or contracted with two physicians, a psychiatrist, a mental health nurse practitioner, a dentist and a radiology technician along with nursing staff. (Id.) Prison Medical Services operated out of the medical unit within the Prison ("Infirmary"). (Id.)
For the purpose of ruling on the summary judgment motions the Court finds the following facts are not in genuine dispute. During Mr. Mealey's 2012 Incarceration at the Prison, Plaintiff learned that there was a shower in the Infirmary, which includes grab bars, a shower seat, and sufficient clear floor space for his wheelchair and to remove the wheelchair to keep it dry. (Amended Complaint, Doc. 77 at ¶ 19.) During his 2015 Incarceration, Plaintiff was allowed to shower in the Infirmary shower at times (Mealey Dep., Doc. 150-34 at 84:18-23.) Deputies at the Prison allowed Plaintiff to take showers in the Infirmary when he was housed elsewhere inthe Prison. (Mealey Dep., Doc. 150-34 at 85:22-25, 86:1-3.) Some nurses, specifically, Nurse Antoine, would not let Plaintiff use the Infirmary shower. (Mealey Dep., Doc. 150-34 at 76:2-25, 77:1-25, 78:1-14, 87:1-21.) Prison Medical Services was responsible for deciding who could use the shower in the Infirmary. (Warden Grimes Dep., Doc. 150-40 at 42:24-25, 43:1-25, 44:1-4; Beatrice Stines Dep., Doc. 150-33 at 92:12-25, 93:2-12.) While being housed in general population, Plaintiff was always able to place himself in the shower. (Mealey Dep., Doc. 150-34 at 148:4-25, 160:20-25, 161:1-13) Mealey received assistance from fellow inmates near the showers if he asked for assistance. (Mealey Dep., Doc. 150-34 at 149:16-150:14.)
While Warden Grimes was making rounds on the Q building, Mr. Mealey stopped him and told him that he needed a shower chair to shower with, and when asked if there was one on the line, Mr. Mealey told him "no." Warden Grimes told Prison Medical Services that there is a need for shower chairs in the Q building. Warden Grimes did not know whether there were shower chairs in the Infirmary or whether they were broken. Warden Grimes passed the request on to Prison Medical Services because they supplied the shower chairs. (Warden Grimes Dep., Doc. 150-40 at 10:15-25, 11:1-4.) It was Warden Grimes' understanding that there were grab bars in showers in each of the twelve dorms. (Warden Grimes Dep., Doc. 150-40 at 24:1-11.)
Plaintiff understood that Prison Medical Services provided wheelchairs which were kept in the Infirmary. (Mealey Dep., Doc. 150-34 at 230:5-25.) The Prison accepted personal catheters and suppositories from Mealey's family and distributed them to him during morning and evening pill calls ranging from two catheters until next pill call, to an entire box of thirty catheters to be rationed as needed. (Mealey Dep., Doc. 150-34 at 180:10-183:24.) The nurses and not the deputies provided Mealey with catheters at the Prison. (Mealey Dep., Doc. 150-34 at 183, 184, 185, 186.)
During his time at the jail, Mealey was able to make use of his cell area to elevate his feet without any problem, including using the bars, cover (blanket), bunk bed, etc. (Mealey Dep., Doc. 150-34 at 172:20-174:17.) Mealey was told by certain deputies that he could not stick his feet in the bunk, but he never got a nurse's attention to explain to the deputy that elevating his feet was good for his circulation. (Mealey Dep., Doc. 150-34 at 173-175.) In one event, Mealey's feet began to swell to the extent he made a medical request, and he was treated by a physician and the prescribed fluid medication resolved the swelling. (Mealey Dep., Doc. 150-34 at 177:9-178:25.)
Corporal Patrick was employed by the Sheriff to process inmate grievances. (Cpl. Wayne Patrick Dep., Doc. 150-35 at 10:4-23.) As part of Corporal Patrick's job processing grievances, he could reject a grievance for various reasons. (Cpl. Wayne Patrick Dep., Doc. 150-35 at 11:2-14.) For example, Corporal Patrick could reject a grievance if it contained multiple complaints or if it did not affect the inmate at the time he filed his complaint, for instance, when the complaint was moot. (Cpl. Wayne Patrick Dep., Doc. 150-35 at 14:2-25, 15:1-4.) It was ultimately the responsibility of Prison Medical Services to determine whether a grievance related to an inmate's medical needs was founded or unfounded. Prison Medical Services was a separate department from the Sheriff's department. (Cpl. Wayne Patrick Dep., Doc. 150-35 at 20:7-20, 21:1-3.) Corporal Patrick rejected a grievance filed by Plaintiff between October 19 and October 30, 2015 in which Plaintiff asserted that he was on Medical Lockdown and he was requesting that he be moved back to the general population. Plaintiff was also complaining about his wheelchair. (Cpl. Wayne Patrick Dep., Doc. 150-35 at 41:11-25.)
The City/Parish is a public entity covered by Title II of the ADA. The City/Parish received federal funding in 2015 and 2016. (Doc. 148-3.) The City/Parish owns the Prison.(Gautreaux Aff., Doc. 132-10 at ¶ 5.) The City/Parish is responsible for the expenses of physically maintaining the Prison. (Gautreaux Aff., Doc. 132-10 at ¶¶ 5-6.) The City/Parish is responsible for all of the expenses of feeding, clothing and providing medical care to inmates at the Prison. (Gautreaux Aff., Doc. 132-10 at ¶ 7.) Prison Medical Services was responsible for providing the medical care of the offenders at the Prison. (Doc. 150-38 at I:5:21-24, Doc. 150-39 II:152:19-25, II:153:1-5; Gautreaux Aff., Doc. 132-10 at ¶ 8.)
The Sheriff does not own the Prison. (Gautreaux Aff., Doc. 132-10 at ¶ 5.) The Sheriff did not enter into a contract with Prison Medical Services or ...
To continue reading
Request your trial