Opinion
Civil Action 21-00353-BAJ-RLB
09-28-2022
TRINITY MILLER, ET AL. v. JAMES LEBLANC, ET AL.
RULING AND ORDER
BRIAN A. JACKSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
Before the Court is the 12(b)(6) Partial Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 16, the “Motion”), submitted by Defendants James M. LeBlanc, Darrel Vannoy, and Brandalynn McMullen. The motion is opposed. (Doc. 23). For reasons to follow, Defendants' Motion will be granted, subject to Plaintiffs' right to submit an amended complaint consistent with the relief set forth herein.
I. BACKGROUND
a. Facts
This is a wrongful death and survival action. Plaintiffs are the children of former Louisiana State Penitentiary (LSP) inmate Michael Miller (“Miller”, or “Decedent”). (Doc. 1, ¶3-4). Miller died while in custody LSP from an apparent drug overdose after ingesting a “bag” of illegal drugs that Defendant Correctional Officer Brandalynn McMullen tried to confiscate from him. (Doc. 1 ¶13, 19). Plaintiffs allege the following operative facts:
In March 2020, the LSP suspended all visits by lawyers and family members. (Doc. 1 ¶ 10). It is not specifically alleged who gave Decedent the drugs or how he came into possession of the drugs. It is merely alleged that between March 2020 and June 2020 prison staff “smuggled methamphetamine and heroin into LSP and distributed these drugs to Mr. Miller.” (Doc. 1 ¶ 11). On June 20, 2020, Decedent was in his dorm area when Officer McMullen conducted a pat down search of his body. (Doc. 1 ¶13). During the search, Officer McMullen discovered a bag of drugs on Decedent's person, at which time Decedent grabbed the bag and swallowed it. (Doc. 1 ¶ 15). Thereafter, Officer McMullen allegedly ignored LSP policy by failing to provide Decedent with medical care and, instead, intentionally ordered that Decedent be placed in a disciplinary lockdown cell. (Doc. 1 ¶17-18). Decedent was never evaluated by medical personnel.
At some point while in disciplinary lockdown, “Other Officers” noticed that Decedent began exhibiting signs of medical distress similar to that of a drug overdose. (Doc. 1 ¶21). “Other Officers” left Decedent in his cell and made no effort to seek medical aid despite obvious signs that he was in medical distress. (Doc. 1 ¶22-23, 25). An autopsy later revealed that he died on June 21, 2020 from “Mixed Drug (methamphetamine and heroin) toxicity.” (Doc. 1 ¶28).
b. Procedural History
Plaintiffs filed suit on June 18, 2021, against Defendants James LeBlanc, Darrel Vannoy, Officer McMullen, and “Other Currently Unknown Defendants.” (Doc. 1). Plaintiffs assert three claims. First, a Section 1983 claim against Defendants LeBlanc and Vannoy, in their individual capacities, for the establishment of a system in which inmates with serious medical issues are denied access to appropriate medical care. (Doc. 1 ¶38). Second, a Section 1983 claim against Defendant Vannoy, in his individual capacity, for failure to supervise the officers of the Louisiana State Penitentiary to ensure that prisoners receive appropriate care for serious medical needs. (Doc. 1 ¶39). Third, a Section 1983 claim against Defendant McMullen and the other unnamed Defendants, in their individual capacities, for deliberate indifference to Decedent's constitutional right to appropriate medical care. (Doc. 1 ¶40).
II. LEGAL STANDARD
A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss tests the sufficiency of the complaint against the legal standard set forth in Rule 8, which requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell All. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). When a defendant asserts the defense of qualified immunity in a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), ‘“the district court must'-as always-do no more than determine whether the plaintiff has Tile[d] a short and plain statement of his complaint, a statement that rests on more than conclusions alone.'” Anderson v. Valdez, 845 F.3d 580, 589-90 (5th Cir. 2016) (quoting Schultea v. Wood, 47 F.3d 1427, 1433 (5th Cir. 1995)).
Here, the only issue raised in the Motion subjudice is whether Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability for civil damages “when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” City of Escondido, Calif, v. Emmons, 139 S.Ct. 500, 503 (2019). Its intended purpose is to strike a balance “between the interests in vindication of citizens' constitutional rights and in public officials' effective performance of their duties” by making it possible for government officials “reasonably [to] anticipate when their conduct may give rise to liability for damages.” See Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639 (1987) (quoting Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183, 195 (1984)). Put differently, “[qualified immunity gives government officials breathing room to make reasonable but mistaken judgments about open legal questions. When properly applied, it protects 'all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.'” Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 743 (2011) (quoting Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986)).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has devised a twopronged test for qualified immunity. Courts must consider (1) “whether the facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury, show that the official's conduct violated a constitutional right,” and (2) “whether the right was ‘clearly established.'” Cunningham v. Castloo, 983 F.3d 185, 190-91 (5th Cir. 2020). A court may analyze these prongs in either order, and resolve the case on a single prong. Id. at 190.
Plaintiffs need not point to a “case directly on point” for a court to determine a law is clearly established. Morgan v. Swanson, 659 F.3d 359, 371 (5th Cir. 2011). However, “existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.” Id.
III. DISCUSSION
a. Fourteenth Amendment Failure to Provide Medical Care
Plaintiffs
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 28th day of September, 2022