Joseph Dauzat v. Bessie Carter
670 F. App'x 297
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Joseph Dauzat, a prisoner, alleged deliberate indifference to serious medical needs after neurosurgeon ordered physical therapy following treatment; he did not receive appropriate therapy for a period.
- Defendants: Bessie Carter (Director of Nursing), Laura Buckley (LPN), and Dr. Casey McVea (physician).
- Allegations: Buckley failed to refer Dauzat to a physician despite obvious symptoms; McVea ignored the neurosurgeon’s physical-therapy order and substituted an inmate-run wellness program; Carter deferred to McVea and did not locate alternative therapy.
- District court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss on Eleventh Amendment and qualified immunity grounds; defendants appealed.
- The panel exercised collateral-order jurisdiction to review qualified-immunity and Eleventh Amendment rulings.
- Dauzat’s request for appointment of appellate counsel was denied for lack of exceptional circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qualified immunity for Buckley (nurse) | Buckley’s failure to refer despite obvious signs violated Eighth Amendment | Buckley contends conduct not objectively unreasonable; qualified immunity applies | Denied — allegations show obvious serious condition and failure to refer violated clearly established right (no immunity) |
| Qualified immunity for Dr. McVea (physician) | McVea ignored neurosurgeon’s PT order and provided inadequate inmate-run substitute | McVea argues not deliberately indifferent; qualified immunity applies | Denied — alleged failure to provide ordered PT violated clearly established Eighth Amendment right |
| Qualified immunity for Carter (Director of Nursing) | Carter knew wellness program was not equivalent and failed to secure proper PT | Carter claims she deferred to physician and lacked deliberate indifference | Denied — as director who knew facts, a reasonable nurse would know failing to provide ordered PT violated clearly established right |
| Eleventh Amendment / prospective relief | Dauzat seeks prospective injunctive relief to obtain appropriate ongoing care | Defendants argue immunity and mootness because PT now provided and Carter retired | Denied — medical needs not fully satisfied (follow-ups ordered); injunctive relief can be directed to current official despite Carter’s retirement |
Key Cases Cited
- Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339 (5th Cir. 2006) (deliberate indifference standard; obviousness of serious medical need)
- Easter v. Powell, 467 F.3d 459 (5th Cir. 2006) (deliberate indifference and qualified-immunity analysis for medical claims)
- Lawson v. Dallas County, 286 F.3d 257 (5th Cir. 2002) (Eighth Amendment medical care precedents)
- Hinojosa v. Livingston, 807 F.3d 657 (5th Cir. 2015) (collateral-order jurisdiction for interlocutory qualified-immunity appeals)
- McCarthy ex rel. Travis v. Hawkins, 381 F.3d 407 (5th Cir. 2004) (jurisdictional standards under collateral-order doctrine)
- Center for Individual Freedom v. Carmouche, 449 F.3d 655 (5th Cir. 2006) (prospective relief and Eleventh Amendment exceptions)
- Aguilar v. Texas Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 160 F.3d 1052 (5th Cir. 1998) (prospective injunctive relief against state officials)
- Cooper v. Sheriff, Lubbock County, Tex., 929 F.2d 1078 (5th Cir. 1991) (standards for appointment of counsel in civil appeals)
- Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209 (5th Cir. 1982) (counsel appointment factors)