Alan Brumfield v. Natchitoches Parish Deten Ctr, e
689 F. App'x 309
5th Cir.2017Background
- Alan Brumfield, a pretrial detainee at Natchitoches Parish Detention Center, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging failures to protect him, improper housing with convicted inmates, inadequate intervention during a March 2013 assault, denial of medical care, and denial of access to courts.
- The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim; Brumfield appealed in forma pauperis.
- Brumfield alleged staff were deliberately indifferent to his safety by housing him with convicted inmates and failing to notice/stop the assault.
- After the assault, Brumfield was examined and treated (nurse exam and ibuprofen same day; nurse practitioner and cortisone injection next day; later steroids and spinal x-rays).
- He also claimed denial of access to the courts based on alleged interference with his litigation efforts; the record showed numerous unsuccessful pleadings.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo and affirmed, denied injunctive/emergency relief and leave to amend, and assessed a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to protect / deliberate indifference to safety | Brumfield: officials knowingly exposed him to substantial risk by housing him with convicted inmates and failing to prevent an assault | Officials: no deliberate indifference; at most negligence for failing to notice/stop assault | Affirmed — no deliberate indifference; failure to notice/stop is negligence, not constitutional |
| Medical deliberate indifference | Brumfield: medical staff failed to adequately treat injuries from assault | Officials: provided prompt and continuing care (nurse exam, meds, injections, steroids, x-rays) | Affirmed — treatment records defeat an Eighth/Fourteenth Amendment medical claim |
| Denial of access to courts | Brumfield: officials interfered with his ability to pursue legal claims | Officials: no prejudice shown to any nonfrivolous claim; plaintiff filed numerous unsuccessful pleadings | Affirmed — no showing of prejudice to nonfrivolous litigation |
| Procedural sanction (IFP strike) | (Implicit) Brumfield: dismissal improper, should not count as strike | Defendants: dismissal counts as a strike under § 1915(g) | Affirmed — dismissal counts as a strike; warned about three-strike bar |
Key Cases Cited
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference requires actual subjective awareness of substantial risk)
- Green v. Atkinson, 623 F.3d 278 (5th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for § 1915 dismissals and accepting complaint facts as true)
- Alton v. Texas A & M Univ., 168 F.3d 196 (5th Cir. 1999) (failure to intervene may be negligence, not deliberate indifference)
- Domino v. Texas Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 239 F.3d 752 (5th Cir. 2001) (elements of a deliberate indifference medical claim)
- Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996) (access-to-courts claims require showing of prejudice to nonfrivolous claims)
- Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403 (2002) (prejudice element for access-to-courts claims; must show inability to pursue specific nonfrivolous claim)
- Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 1996) (district-court dismissal under § 1915 counts as a strike)