Lewis v. Evans

29 Citing cases

  1. Williams v. Collier

    Civil Action 6:22cv359 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 9, 2024)

    While the record confirms some delays between Plaintiff's complaints and the care provided, brief delays in the provision of care alone do not amount to deliberate indifference. Lewis v. Evans, 440 Fed.Appx. 263, 264 (5th Cir. 2011). This is especially true in the context of this case, involving a prison medical team's attempt to manage the medical needs of a segregated inmate who required a security escort at all times out of his cell, during a pandemic, with security staff shortages, and a winter storm, all of which no doubt combined to delay medical care for many people inside and outside of prison.

  2. Fearheily v. Semmes

    Civil Action 2:21-cv-0305 (W.D. La. Feb. 9, 2022)

    “A serious medical need is one for which treatment has been recommended or for which the need is so apparent that even laymen would recognize that care is required.” Lewis v. Evans, 440 Fed.Appx. 263, 264 (5th Cir. 2011) (Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 345 n. 12 (5th Cir.2006)). “To prevail on a claim of deliberate indifference under the Fourteenth Amendment, ‘[t]he plaintiff must show that an officer acted with subjective knowledge of a substantial risk of serious medical harm, followed by a response of deliberate indifference

  3. Stewart v. Guzman

    555 F. App'x 425 (5th Cir. 2014)   Cited 35 times
    In Stewart, jail officials ignored an emergency intercom on four separate dates, watched and ignored an inmate lying on the floor, and ignored other inmates knocking on the cell door, resulting each time in the inmate having an asthma attack.

    A medical need is serious if it "is one for which treatment has been recommended or for which the need is so apparent that even laymen would recognize that care is required." Lewis v. Evans, 440 F. App'x 263, 264 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (unpublished) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Stewart must prove "that the officials 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."

  4. Davis v. Lafourche Par. Criminal Complex

    Civil Action 24-1922 (E.D. La. Sep. 30, 2024)

    ” Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 345 n.12 (5th Cir. 2006); Lewis v. Evans, 40 Fed.Appx. 263, 264 (5th Cir. 2011). A prison official is deliberately indifferent if he or she has actual knowledge of a substantial risk of harm to an inmate and disregards that substantial risk.

  5. Richards v. Wallace

    Civil Action 24-1529 (E.D. La. Jul. 30, 2024)

    Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 345 n.12 (5th Cir. 2006); Lewis v. Evans, 40 Fed.Appx. 263, 264 (5th Cir. 2011). A prison official is deliberately indifferent if he or she has actual knowledge of a substantial risk of harm to an inmate and disregards that substantial risk.

  6. Pettieway v. Strent

    2:23-cv-00009 (W.D. La. Dec. 4, 2023)

    "A serious medical need is one for which treatment has been recommended or for which the need is so apparent that even laymen would recognize that care is required." Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 345 n.12 (5th Cir. 2006); Lewis v. Evans, 440 Fed.Appx. 263, 264 (5th Cir. 2011). A prison official is deliberately indifferent if he or she has actual knowledge of a substantial risk of harm to an inmate and disregards that substantial risk.

  7. Blanton v. Med. Dep't

    Civil Action 6:21cv481 (E.D. Tex. May. 3, 2023)

    While he may be unhappy with the treatment he received, he received dental examinations, X-rays, and ultimately surgery. See Lewis v. Evans, 440 Fed.Appx. 263, 265 (5th Cir. 2011) (explaining that the plaintiff alleged no more than negligence and medical malpractice, as “Evans did not ignore Lewis's complaints. Rather, Evans examined Lewis several times in response to his complaints.

  8. Huff v. Collier

    Civil Action 6:20cv9 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 12, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    See, e.g., Lewis v. Evans, 440 Fed.Appx. 263, 265 (5th Cir. 2011) (unpublished) (“Although Evans failed to diagnose Lewis's infected ear and folliculitis, it is indisputable that an incorrect diagnosis by prison medical personnel does not suffice to state a claim for deliberate indifference.”)

  9. Roberts v. Cooper

    Civil Action 6:22cv102 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 29, 2022)   Cited 13 times

    Even gross negligence does not constitute deliberate indifference. Lewis v. Evans, 440 Fed.Appx. 263, 265 (5th Cir. 2011) (unpublished)

  10. Watts v. Warren Cnty.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:18-CV-879-DPJ-FKB (S.D. Miss. Jun. 15, 2021)   Cited 2 times
    Rejecting conditions-of-confinement theory that lack of adequate medical care and subjection to assault was unconstitutional condition because the complained of harm was an episodic event and not the condition itself

    “A medical need is serious if it ‘is one for which treatment has been recommended or for which the need is so apparent that even laymen would recognize that care is required.'” Stewart v. Guzman, 555 Fed.Appx. 425, 431 (5th Cir. 2014) (quoting Lewis v. Evans, 440 Fed.Appx. 263, 264 (5th Cir. 2011)). Finally, to establish a Fourteenth Amendment claim based on a delay in medical care, Watts must show that the delay itself “result[ed] in substantial harm.”