Davis v. Vannoy
3:19-cv-00558
M.D. La.Oct 21, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Richard Davis, an Angola inmate, sues Warden Darrel Vannoy and Secretary James LeBlanc under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the ADA, alleging deliberate indifference to serious dental needs and failure to provide a soft diet.
- Davis underwent extractions, bone ridge surgery, multiple dentures, adjustments, and treatment by multiple dentists and an oral surgeon; dentures have not fit due to inadequate bone.
- He alleges inability to chew, digestive problems, and that the prison provided protein supplements he refuses because they are opened by security; he asserts no soft diet was provided.
- Administrative grievance responses show a dentist ordered protein supplements pending a solution for the dentures.
- The magistrate judge screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A and analyzed Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference and ADA claims, concluding the facts do not state federal claims.
- Recommendation: dismiss federal claims with prejudice for failure to state a claim and decline supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eighth Amendment — deliberate indifference to serious medical needs (dental) | Davis: ongoing failure to provide usable dentures prevents chewing and causes harm | Defendants: provided extensive dental care (multiple dentists, oral surgeon, many dentures/adjustments); failed results ≠ deliberate indifference | Dismissed — allegations show treatment, not denial or purposeful indifference; failed treatment alone insufficient |
| ADA liability — individual capacity | Davis: ADA claim for failure to provide reasonable accommodation (soft diet) | Defendants: Title II applies to public entities, not individuals | Dismissed as to individuals — individuals not liable under Title II |
| ADA liability — official capacity / denial of benefits | Davis: asserts denial of diet/supplements because of disability | Defendants: Davis did not allege exclusion or discrimination by reason of disability; dentist provided protein supplement | Dismissed — complaint fails to plead required elements of an ADA claim |
| Supervisory liability under § 1983 | Davis: seeks to hold Vannoy/LeBlanc responsible for diet/medical decisions | Defendants: no personal participation alleged; respondeat superior not a basis for § 1983 liability | Dismissed — no personal involvement or policy-based supervisory liability pleaded |
| Jurisdiction over state-law claims | Davis: may assert state-law claims related to care | Court: federal claims dismissed | Court recommends declining supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard for medical care)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (requires prison official know of and disregard substantial risk to inmate health)
- Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992) (standards for dismissing frivolous prisoner suits under § 1915)
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (frivolousness and § 1915 screening principles)
- Domino v. Texas Dep't of Criminal Justice, 239 F.3d 752 (5th Cir. 2001) (disagreement with medical treatment does not show deliberate indifference)
- Pa. Dep't of Corrections v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206 (1998) (Title II of the ADA applies to state prisons)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (supervisory liability requires personal involvement or policy causing violation)
- Monell v. Dep't of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability principles; no respondeat superior under § 1983)
- Lozano v. Smith, 718 F.2d 756 (5th Cir. 1983) (supervisory liability standards for § 1983 claims)
- Lightbourn v. County of El Paso, Texas, 118 F.3d 421 (5th Cir. 1997) (elements of a Title II ADA claim)