Eddie Brown v. April Megg
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 8551
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- In July 2014 Eddie Brown experienced severe stomach pain, was seen in the prison infirmary, had normal x‑rays and bloodwork, and was prescribed Zantac and other meds by Dr. Ron Woodall.
- Brown alleges ongoing pain and repeated, mostly unrecorded sick‑call requests; he was later seen by Dr. Charmaine McCleave, hospitalized, and found to have a perforated stomach ulcer requiring surgery.
- After surgery Brown received postoperative pain medication; his Zantac prescription was not discontinued despite a specialist’s order to stop it.
- Brown sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Woodall, nurse‑manager April Meggs (supervisory liability), and Wexford Health (corporate liability), alleging deliberate indifference to a serious medical need.
- The magistrate judge dismissed claims against Meggs and Wexford for failure to state a claim and granted summary judgment for Woodall for lack of evidentiary support; the court also assessed a § 1915(g) “three‑strikes” strike based on the partial dismissals.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the merits dismissals/summary‑judgment rulings but held the § 1915(g) strike was improper because only some claims — not the entire action — were dismissed for failure to state a claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Supervisory and corporate liability (Meggs, Wexford) | Meggs/Wexford are liable for subordinate staff’s failures to respond to sick‑calls and delays | Meggs lacks direct involvement; Wexford cannot be liable under respondeat superior absent an official policy/custom causing harm | Dismissal for failure to state a claim affirmed — supervisory and respondeat superior allegations insufficient |
| Deliberate indifference by Woodall (diagnosis/treatment/refusal) | Woodall misdiagnosed, was dismissive, interfered with postsurgical orders, and ignored sick‑call requests | Woodall ordered tests, provided medications, did not see or ignore unrecorded sick‑calls, and continuous postoperative care undermines deliberate indifference | Summary judgment for Woodall affirmed — evidence fails to show the required subjective deliberate indifference |
| Adequacy of on‑site physician coverage claim | Lack of 24/7 on‑site physician caused delay and harm | No authority requires 24/7 on‑site doctors; doctors available during day and by phone; no proof of injury from night absence | Dismissed — no legal requirement for round‑the‑clock doctors and no proof of resultant injury |
| § 1915(g) “three‑strikes” application | Partial dismissal of some claims for failure to state a claim counts as a strike | § 1915(g) refers to dismissed "actions," meaning the entire lawsuit; partial dismissals should not count as a strike | Vacated the strike — a strike issues only when the entire action is dismissed on one of the § 1915(g) grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339 (5th Cir. 2006) (deliberate indifference standard for prisoner medical claims)
- Thompkins v. Belt, 828 F.2d 298 (5th Cir. 1987) (supervisory liability requires more than supervisory role)
- Kohler v. Englade, 470 F.3d 1104 (5th Cir. 2006) (no respondeat superior liability in § 1983 claims)
- Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 1759 (2015) (PLRA’s purpose to filter frivolous prisoner suits)
- Thompson v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 492 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (holding § 1915(g) speaks of actions, not claims)