Larry Dupree ALDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONCORDIA PARISH CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; Warden Lance Moore; George Byrnes, Chief of Security; Sheila Spinner, Administrative Assistant; Captain Kelly Moore; Captain Jackie Johnson; Debra Cowan, Administrative Assistant; Lieutenant Harvey Bryant, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-30610
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed February 9, 2017
848 F.3d 415
Before ELROD, SOUTHWICK, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Larry Alderson, a pretrial detainee, brought this action under
I.
Alderson alleges that he was brutally attacked in the Concordia Parish Correctional Facility (CPCF) on the morning of December 22, 2014.1 The attack took place in G Dorm, where Alderson, a pretrial detainee, was housed with Department of Correction (DOC) inmates due to a misclassification by Chief of Security George Byrnes and Administrative Assistant Sheila Spinner. Alderson‘s assailants were two DOC inmates whom he did not know. They stabbed him and stomped on him in an attack that lasted at least three to five minutes. When Alderson raised concerns about his safety and his medical condition after the attack, Lieutenant Harvey Bryant sent him to lockdown in a cell with DOC inmates. It was not until after Alderson and his family made numerous complaints to staff that Bryant returned to the cell, took pictures of Alderson‘s injuries using his own cell phone instead of the investigative camera used for documenting incidents, and then left Alderson for an hour before taking him to the hospital.
Alderson was prescribed antibiotics and painkillers after being diagnosed with bruised or broken ribs and multiple puncture wounds to his face, head, and body. When Alderson asked Bryant for the med
The magistrate judge recommended that Alderson‘s amended complaint be denied and dismissed with prejudice under
II.
A district court‘s dismissal under
Pretrial detainees are protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Cupit v. Jones, 835 F.2d 82, 84-85 (5th Cir. 1987). To succeed in a
A.
The district court correctly dismissed Alderson‘s failure-to-protect claims against Chief of Security George Byrnes, Administrative Assistant Sheila Spinner, Warden Lance Moore, Captain Kelly Moore, and Captain Jackie Johnson. When the state deprives an individual of the freedom to act on his own behalf, the Fourteenth Amendment imposes on the state a duty to protect that individual. Hare, 74 F.3d at 639. “The confinement of pretrial detainees indiscriminately with convicted persons is unconstitutional unless such a practice is reasonably related to the institution‘s interest in maintaining jail security or physical facilities do not permit their separation.” Jones v. Diamond, 636 F.2d 1364, 1374 (5th Cir. 1981).
Even assuming that Alderson should not have been housed with DOC detainees as he alleges, we nevertheless hold that Alderson has failed to state a claim against Byrnes and Spinner for misclassifying him. To state a claim against Byrnes and Spinner, Alderson must allege that their misclassification of him was due to deliberate indifference. That is, he must allege that they knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm. See Domino, 239 F.3d at 755. Alderson alleged, “[T]his institution was informed that there was concerns for my safety.” He explained that, although he did not personally make his safety concerns known to anyone at CPCF prior to the attack, his transfer to the facility was prompted by recognition that he faced special danger due to the nature of the charges on which he was arrested. Alderson‘s allegation that CPCF had knowledge of his danger is not a sufficient allegation that any specific defendant had knowledge of a substantial risk of serious harm to Alderson based upon his classification. Because he has not alleged that Byrnes and Spinner had knowledge of such a risk, Alderson has not linked their alleged misclassification to deliberate indifference toward that risk. Accordingly, Alderson has failed to state a claim based on their misclassification.5
Alderson named the supervisory officials as defendants and alleged generally that they failed in their responsibilities as department heads and individuals otherwise positioned to ensure that he was correctly housed, to ensure that surveillance and security checks were adequate, to check inmates’ backgrounds, and to provide inmates transferred to CPCF for security reasons a safe and secure environment. Alderson made these allegations against the supervisory officials as a group, despite the magistrate judge‘s instruction to “state what each defendant did.” He also alleged that his attack was monitored by two cameras, implying that “the officers assigned to these cameras” should have seen and stopped the attack. However, he did not identify the officers or allege that any of the supervisory officials were responsible for monitoring the cameras. Thus, Alderson failed to allege any particular defendant‘s personal involvement in conduct that caused constitutional deprivation.
Nor has Alderson sufficiently alleged that any of the defendants implemented an unconstitutional policy causally related to his injury. He has alleged that DOC inmates and pretrial detainees wear different uniforms and that DOC inmates housed with pretrial detainees were ordered to change uniforms during a prison inspection, potentially suggesting that prison officials were consciously implementing and concealing a policy or practice of housing DOC inmates with pretrial detainees. On the other hand, the same incident could also be evidence that supervisory officials at the prison had communicated that inmates and detainees should be housed separately and that other prison staff were trying to conceal their violation of this policy. Alderson‘s allegations do not show that an unconstitutional policy existed or that any particular defendants implemented the policy if it did exist. Thus, Alderson has not stated a failure-to-protect claim, and the district court‘s dismissal should be affirmed.
B.
The district court properly dismissed Alderson‘s claims of inadequate medical care against Administrative Assistant Sheila Spinner, Warden Lance Moore, and Head Nurse Debra Cowan. However, it failed to consider Alderson‘s claim that Lieutenant Harvey Bryant impermissibly delayed the initial medical evaluation and improperly dismissed Alderson‘s claim that Bryant failed to assist him in filling his prescription. To establish liability based on a delay in medical treatment, a plaintiff must show deliberate indifference to serious medical needs that resulted in substantial harm. Easter v. Powell, 467 F.3d 459, 464 (5th Cir. 2006). A plaintiff can show deliberate indifference by showing that an official “refused to treat him, ignored his complaints, intentionally treated him incorrectly, or engaged in any similar conduct that would clearly evince a wanton disregard for any serious medical needs.” Id. The pain suffered during a delay in treatment can constitute a substantial harm and form the basis for an award of damages. Id. at 464-65.
The district court determined that Alderson failed to allege facts supporting an inference of deliberate indifference by any of the defendants.6 Alderson alleges that Bryant delayed his medical treatment in two ways. First, Alderson alleges that Bryant delayed his medical treatment by placing him in lockdown upon learning of his condition, waiting until numerous complaints had been made by Alderson and his
The district court concluded that, even if Alderson alleged deliberate indifference, he failed to allege facts supporting an inference that he suffered substantial harm because he did not allege “a life-long handicap or permanent loss.” However, Fifth Circuit precedent does not limit substantial harm to lifelong handicap or permanent loss.8 Rather, our precedent allows recovery for pain suffered during a delay in treatment caused by deliberate indifference. Id. Alderson has alleged that he suffered a “tremendous amount of pain” during the delay in obtaining pain medications and risked a greater likelihood of infection during the delay in obtaining an
C.
Although the district court correctly dismissed Alderson‘s failure-to-protect claims and Alderson‘s medically related claims against Administrative Assistant Sheila Spinner, Warden Lance Moore, and Head Nurse Debra Cowan, the dismissal should have been without prejudice. “When the dismissal of a pro se complaint is appropriate, it should generally be done without prejudice in order to allow the plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint.” Rodriguez v. United States, 66 F.3d 95, 97 (5th Cir. 1995); see also Moawad v. Childs, 673 F.2d 850, 851 (5th Cir. 1982). However, a district court may dismiss with prejudice if the plaintiff has been given adequate opportunity to cure the inadequacies in his pleading or if the pleadings “demonstrate that the plaintiff has pleaded his best case.” Jacquez v. Procunier, 801 F.2d 789, 792-93 (5th Cir. 1986) (affirming dismissal with prejudice for failure to state a claim when plaintiff did not file a supplemental complaint but did file an extensive response to the defendants’ motion to dismiss, alleging facts that suggested negligence but not deliberate indifference in a
Here, the district court did not conduct a Spears hearing or give Alderson a questionnaire, and we are not persuaded that his opportunity to amend his complaint was adequate or that he has necessarily pleaded his best case.10 Alderson‘s amended complaint suggests that he understood the magistrate judge‘s instruction as a direction not to plead his claims against CPCF and that he did not appreciate the specificity with which he must plead the grounds for each individual defendants’ liability.11 With the benefit of more specific
III.
For the reasons stated above, we AFFIRM the district court‘s dismissal of all claims except those against Lieutenant Harvey Bryant. We REVERSE the district court‘s dismissal of the claim that Bryant impermissibly delayed the filling of Alderson‘s prescription and REMAND for further consideration both of this claim and of the previously unconsidered claim that Bryant impermissibly delayed Alderson‘s initial medical evaluation.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.
JAMES E. GRAVES, JR., Circuit Judge, specially concurring in part:1
I write separately because the Supreme Court‘s decision in Kingsley v. Hendrickson, — U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 2466, 192 L.Ed.2d 416 (2015), appears to call into question this court‘s holding in Hare v. City of Corinth, 74 F.3d 633 (5th Cir. 1996). In Kingsley, which was an excessive force case, the Supreme Court indeed said: “Whether that standard might suffice for liability in the case of an alleged mistreatment of a pretrial detainee need not be decided here; for the officers do not dispute that they acted purposefully or knowingly with respect to the force they used against Kingsley.” Kingsley, 135 S.Ct. at 2472. However, that appears to be an acknowledgment that, even in such a case, there is no established subjective standard as the majority determined in Hare. Also, the analysis in Kingsley appears to support the conclusion that an objective standard would apply in a failure-to-protect case. See id. at 2472-2476.
Additionally, the Supreme Court said:
We acknowledge that our view that an objective standard is appropriate in the context of excessive force claims brought by pretrial detainees pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment may raise questions about the use of a subjective standard in the context of excessive force claims brought by convicted prisoners. We are not confronted with such a claim, however, so we need not address that issue today.
Id. at 2476. This indicates that there are still different standards for pretrial detainees and DOC inmates, contrary to at least some of the language in Hare, 74 F.3d at 650, and that, if the standards were to be commingled, it would be toward an objective standard as to both on at least some claims.
Further, the Ninth Circuit granted en banc rehearing in Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2016), after a partially dissenting panel judge wrote separately to point out that Kingsley “calls into question our precedent on the appropriate state-of-mind inquiry in failure-to-protect claims brought by pretrial detainees.”2 The en banc court concluded that Kingsley applies to failure-to-protect claims and that an objective standard is appropriate. Castro, 833 F.3d at 1068-1073.