Larry Alderson v. Concordia Parish Corrtl Facil, e
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2382
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Larry Alderson, a pretrial detainee, alleged he was brutally assaulted by DOC inmates at Concordia Parish Correctional Facility (CPCF) on Dec. 22, 2014, after being housed with DOC inmates due to alleged misclassification.
- After the attack Alderson alleges Lieutenant Harvey Bryant confined him with DOC inmates, delayed medical evaluation, photographed injuries with his personal phone, waited an hour before taking him to the hospital, and refused to provide prescribed antibiotics and pain medication for over a week.
- Alderson sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against CPCF and several officials, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. He amended his complaint per magistrate instructions.
- The magistrate judge recommended dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A for failure to state a claim; the district court adopted that R&R over Alderson’s objections but did not expressly analyze them.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the failure-to-protect and supervisory claims against most defendants, affirmed dismissal of medical claims against some officials, but reversed as to claims against Lt. Harvey Bryant for (1) impermissibly delaying the initial medical evaluation and (2) delaying filling prescribed medications.
- The Fifth Circuit remanded those Bryant-related medical-delay claims for further consideration and held dismissal of other claims should have been without prejudice (pro se plaintiff may be allowed to amend).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to protect due to housing pretrial detainee with DOC inmates | Alderson: misclassification and housing with DOC inmates exposed him to a known risk and led to the assault | Defendants: no specific allegations any named official knew of a substantial risk or caused the misclassification | Court: Dismissed failure-to-protect claims for lack of specific allegations tying named officials to subjective knowledge or causal acts |
| Supervisory liability of prison officials (Byrnes, Spinner, W. Moore, K. Moore, Johnson) | Alderson: supervisors failed to ensure safe housing, adequate surveillance, and background checks | Defendants: no participation, specific act, or unconstitutional policy alleged against any named supervisor | Court: Dismissed supervisory claims for failure to plead personal involvement or implementation of unconstitutional policy |
| Deliberate indifference for delayed medical evaluation (initial delay to hospital) | Alderson: Bryant ignored complaints, put him in lockdown, waited after family complaints, left him an hour before taking him to hospital | Defendants: no deliberate indifference; delay due to holidays or routine factors | Held: Reversed as to this claim against Bryant; allegations could show Bryant refused/ignored treatment and caused substantial pain — remanded for further consideration |
| Delay/refusal to provide prescribed medication (antibiotics, painkillers) | Alderson: Bryant told him to "man up" and to wait until medical staff returned from holiday, so he went >1 week without meds, risking infection and severe pain | Defendants: delay was non-wanton; holiday explains timing; no evidence Bryant had authority to secure meds | Held: Reversed as to claim that Bryant was deliberately indifferent in delaying meds; allegations plausibly allege substantial harm from pain and infection risk — remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Legate v. Livingston, 822 F.3d 207 (5th Cir.) (standard of review for §1915(e)(2)(B) dismissals is de novo under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Hare v. City of Corinth, 74 F.3d 633 (5th Cir. 1996) (subjective deliberate-indifference standard for episodic acts against pretrial detainees)
- Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466 (U.S. 2015) (Supreme Court opinion discussed for state-of-mind standard in pretrial detainee excessive-force claims)
- Domino v. Texas Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 239 F.3d 752 (5th Cir.) (officials must know and disregard substantial risk to show deliberate indifference)
- Easter v. Powell, 467 F.3d 459 (5th Cir.) (deliberate indifference via refusal/ignoring complaints can support § 1983 medical-delay claim; pain from delay can be substantial harm)
- Mouille v. City of Live Oak, 977 F.2d 924 (5th Cir.) (supervisory liability requires personal acts or unconstitutional policy causally related to injury)
- Jones v. Diamond, 636 F.2d 1364 (5th Cir.) (housing pretrial detainees with convicted persons unconstitutional unless reasonably related to jail security needs)
- Rodriguez v. United States, 66 F.3d 95 (5th Cir.) (pro se prisoner complaints should generally be dismissed without prejudice to allow amendment)