Gregory Bailey v. East Baton Rouge Parish Prison
663 F. App'x 328
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Gregory Bailey, a pretrial detainee in Louisiana, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.
- Named defendants included East Baton Rouge Parish Prison, the 19th JDC, Judge Tony Marabella, Warden Dennis Grimes, and Dr. Vincent Leggio.
- District court dismissed claims against the prison, the 19th JDC, and Judge Marabella under Rule 12(b)(6), and granted summary judgment for Grimes and Dr. Leggio under Rule 56(a).
- Bailey appealed and moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), challenging the district court’s certification that his appeal was not taken in good faith.
- Bailey’s appellate challenge focused only on the claim that Dr. Leggio was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs; he did not contest dismissals as to other defendants.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed the summary-judgment ruling de novo and examined whether Bailey raised a nonfrivolous, arguable claim of deliberate indifference.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bailey showed deliberate indifference by Dr. Leggio | Leggio ignored or refused adequate treatment, causing serious harm | Leggio provided care, did not ignore complaints, and evidence disproves deliberate indifference | No — Bailey’s evidence amounts to disagreement/malpractice, not deliberate indifference; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether Bailey’s appeal is taken in good faith for IFP purposes | Bailey contends the deliberate-indifference claim is meritorious and appealable | Appeal is frivolous because no genuine issue of material fact exists to support the claim | No — appeal deemed frivolous; IFP denied and appeal dismissed |
| Whether Bailey met his burden to create a triable issue under Rule 56 | Bailey relied on his pleadings and conclusory allegations to show dispute | Defendants produced evidence negating deliberate indifference; Bailey offered no admissible contrary evidence | No — conclusory allegations insufficient under Rule 56; no triable issue |
| Whether this dismissal counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) | (not contested) | Dismissal is a strike per precedent | Yes — dismissal counts as a strike; warned about accumulating three strikes |
Key Cases Cited
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (deliberate indifference standard; must know of and disregard substantial risk)
- Hare v. City of Corinth, Miss., 74 F.3d 633 (application of Farmer to pretrial detainees)
- Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339 (prisoner must show prison officials refused, ignored, or intentionally mistreated to show wanton disregard)
- Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197 (good-faith inquiry for IFP on appeal; frivolous appeals may be dismissed)
- Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215 (appeal in good faith inquiry limited to whether issues are arguable on their merits)