Means v. Durel, CIVIL NO. 6:15-0096
| Decision Date | 04 February 2016 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL NO. 6:15-0096 |
| Parties | GREGORY MEANS v. LESTER JOSEPH "JOEY" DUREL, JR. , ET AL. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana |
Pending before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss filed by Lester Joseph "Joey" Durel ("Durel"), the sole remaining defendant in this lawsuit, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [rec. doc. 24]. Plaintiff Gregory Means ("Means") has filed Opposition, to which Durel has filed a Reply. [rec. docs. 28 and 31]. Oral argument on the Motion was held on January 26, 2016, and the motion was taken under advisement.
For those reasons stated at the hearing of the motion, and for those set out below, the Motion to Dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. Accordingly, plaintiff's federal Eighth Amendment inadequate medical care claim against Durel and his claims for punitive damages under both federal and state law are dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff will be granted until March 18, 2016 to file an Amended Complaint setting forth additional facts in support of his federal Eighth Amendment unconstitutional prison conditions claim against Durel. The trial set for April 18, 2016 will be continued without date.
Plaintiff filed the instant civil rights lawsuit against two defendants, former Lafayette Parish Sheriff Michael W. Neustrom ("Neustrom") and former Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government President Lester Joseph "Joey" Durel pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [rec. doc. 1, ¶ 1 ]. The plaintiff has not named the Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government.
Plaintiff alleges that he was incarcerated at the Lafayette Parish Correctional Center ("LPCC"), "operated under the auspices of the Lafayette Parish Sheriff." [Id. at ¶ 6,7, 11, and14]. On January 19, 2014, Deputy Smith entered into cell 3E-10 and "removed a large towel from the floor which was being used to soak up water coming into the cell from leaking water pipes." [Id. at ¶ 11]. When Means advised Deputy Smith that the towels in the cell were being used to minimize the hazard in the cell by soaking up water . . . she became angry and . . . locked him in cell 3E-10." [Id. at ¶ 13]. On January 20, 2014, Means woke during the night and "began walking in the cell at which time he slipped in a puddle of water leaking from the plumbing and fell onto the concrete floor, injuring himself." [Id. at ¶ 14]. He was later transported to a local hospital for treatment. [Id. at ¶ 15]. Means' requested prescription medication and additional diagnostic testing, but was not provided either. [Id. at ¶ 16].
In his introductory paragraph and caption of the lawsuit, plaintiff names both Durel and Neustrom solely in their official capacities. In his fourth paragraph, however, he names Durel "individually and in his capacity as the duly elected City-Parish President . . . and the operator of the Lafayette Parish Correctional Center." [Id. at ¶ 4].
The sole allegations which may be construed as asserting an individual capacity claim against Durel appear in paragraph 8, where the plaintiff alleges that both Neustrom and Durel "knew or should have known of failing plumbing in the deteriorating building." [Id. at ¶ 8]. The remainder of the factual allegations appear to be directed at Neustrom as they refer to jail "staff" and a particular deputy sheriff, Deputy Smith, [¶ ¶ 9-14] and refer to requests for additional medical care, presumably made to jail personnel [¶ 16], all of whom are Neustrom's employees, for whom plaintiff alleges Neustrom is responsible [¶ ¶ 2, 25]. Nevertheless, these allegations are addressed below.
With respect to official capacity liability, Means alleges that Neustrom and Durel "jointly and in solido devised, adopted, implemented and carried out a custom, practice, or policy or policies and/or procedures" which included, in pertinent part, operating an under and inadequately staffed facility with maintenance and plumbing deficiencies which led to hazardous conditions in the living units [¶ 17(a)-(c)], creating and failing to discover a hazardous condition caused by water leaking in the cells and failing to warn of the hazardous condition which defendants knew of or should have known of had they exercised reasonable care [¶ 17(f)-(h) and (l)], failing to exercise reasonable care and failing to fix the hazardous condition caused by the water leaking in the cells [¶ 17(i)], failing to keep the jail in a reasonably safe condition [¶ 17(k)]. Means alleges that these omissions were "deliberately indifferent in that it was obvious that the likely consequences of adopting a policy or policies and/or procedures was/were a deprivation of . . . Means' constitutional rights, resulting in his injuries. . . . ." [¶ 19]. "In the alternative, Means alleges that the defendants "devised, adopted, implemented and/or carried out a custom of [sic] policy or policies and/or procedures which caused the defendants to retain hazardous conditions in the correctional facility cell that was the cause of injury to Gregory Means. . . ." [¶ 19].
Again, although plaintiff's pleadings are imprecise, the majority of the remaining allegations appear to be lodged against former Sheriff Neustrom for his negligent retention of staff [¶ 17(d)], failure of his staff to conduct rounds to check on inmates [¶ 17(m)], failure to train, supervise and monitor deputies to identify inmate medical needs, failure to allow medical treatment, and allowing non- medical staff to make medical decisions and acting in deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of the plaintiff [¶ 17(e) and (n)-(p)]. Means further alleges that "the defendants", presumably Neustrom, failed to adopt a policy regarding medical procedures to ensure the safety and well being of inmates like Means [ ¶ 18] and deprived "Means of reasonable medical care . . . , same being deliberately indifferent in that it was obvious that the likely consequences was/were a deprivation of . . .Means' constitutional rights." [¶ 19]. These allegations will, however, be addressed below.
Based on these factual allegations, Means sets forth a federal cause of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 presumably based on the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution for inadequate medical care and unconstitutional prison conditions1, as well as causes of action based on Louisiana state law.2 [rec. doc. 25, ¶ 1].
Means seeks both compensatory and punitive damages for an unspecified injury, as well as an award of attorney fees presumably pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. [See Prayer for Relief; ¶ ¶ 14 and 15].
Based on these allegations, the district court previously granted Neustrom's Motion to Dismiss and accordingly, Means' federal § 1983 claims against Neustrom were dismissed with prejudice. [rec. doc. 11]. In so doing, the district court Haik held that Means' allegations of a "pipe leak", although an inconvenience and requiring repair, did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. The district court additionally held that Means had not demonstrated deliberate indifference to his medical needs, given that Means had been transported to the hospital for treatment, had not alleged that additional diagnostic testing or medication was prescribed by hospital physicians and had failed to allege that he suffered any substantial harm as a result of the alleged inadequate treatment. Further, although Means may not have been fully satisfied by the treatment he received, the district court found that Means' dissatisfaction does not amount to deliberate indifference. Finally, the district court found that punitive damages were not available against Neustrom in his official capacity or under state law. [rec. doc. 11]. Although requested, the district court did not allow Means an opportunity to amend his complaint before dismissing Means' claims against Neustrom. Thereafter, the parties consented to the exercise of this Court's jurisdiction by the undersigned.
By this Motion to Dismiss, Durel contends that Means' claims against Durel should be dismissed pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) because Means has failed to state a § 1983 claim against Durel upon which relief may granted because: (1) the Sheriff is responsible for the operation of the LPCC, including the upkeep of the jail and the provision of medical care to inmates, (2) Means has failed to demonstrate that he suffered a Constitutional deprivation as his claims are for ordinary negligence, and (3) Means has failed to state a valid municipal liability claim, and (4) Means has no viable claim for punitive damages against Durel. Durel additionally argues that there is no basis for this Court to retain jurisdiction over Means' remaining Louisiana state law claims.
In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), a district court must limit itself to the contents of the pleadings, including attachments thereto. Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 224 F.3d 496, 498 (5th Cir. 2000); F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6). Moreover, it is proper to consider documents that a defendant attaches to a motion to dismiss, if such documents are referred to in the plaintiff's complaint and are central to the plaintiff's claim, as they form part of the pleadings. Id. at 498-499. Further, in deciding a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a court may permissibly refer to matters of public record. Cinel v. Connick, 15 F.3d 1338, 1343 fn. 6 (5th Cir. 1994). Finally, a court may consider matters of which they may take judicial notice. U.S. ex rel. Willard v. Humana Health Plan of Texas, Inc., 336 F.3d 375, 379 (5th Cir. 2003) citing Lovelace v. Software Spectrum Inc., 78 F.3d 1015, 1017-18 (5th Cir.1996). "A judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready...
To continue reading
Request your trial