United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
RULING AND ORDER
A. JACKSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CHIEF JUDGE
the Court is the Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to
Dismiss (Doc. 13) filed by Sergeant Billy Verrett ("Sgt.
Verrett"), and the Motion for Summary Judgment for
Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies (Doc. 16) filed by
Msgt. Eric Lane ("Msgt. Lane"), Sgt. Verret, Maj.
Shannon Lessard ("Maj. Lessard"), and Lt. Jarod
Verrett ("Lt. Verrett") (collectively
"Defendants"). Gilbert O'Neil ("Plaintiff)
filed responses to both motions. (Docs. 17, 20). Oral
argument on the motions is not necessary. The Court has
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
is an inmate at Elayn Hunt Correctional Center
("EHCC") in St. Gabriel, Louisiana. (Doc. 1).
Plaintiff alleges that on or about January 8, 2016, he was
badly beaten by Defendants after being taken to the infirmary
for X-rays. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that an employee
at EHCC initiated a physical altercation with Plaintiff.
(Doc. 1 at ¶ 6). When Plaintiff fought back, the
employee "took [Plaintiff] to the ground and handcuffed
him." (Id. at ¶ 7). Plaintiff was
eventually escorted to the infirmary to have X-rays taken of
his shoulder and was thereafter placed in a holding cell.
(Id. at ¶¶ 7-8). Plaintiff alleges that
for the purpose of punishing him, Plaintiff was escorted back
to the X-ray room in full restraints and was
"beat...down to the ground, " kicked and punched by
Maj. Lessard. (Id. at ¶ 11). Plaintiff asserts
that Lt. Verrett and Msgt. Lane also entered the X-ray room,
began punching and kicking Plaintiff, and "Major Lazard
(sic) pulled [Plaintiff] by his shackles into [his]
vomit" and further injured a preexisting ankle injury.
(Id. at ¶¶ 12-13).
next alleges that he was carried to the Assessment Triage
Unit of the prison, where an EMT placed bandages on his leg
and prison officials prepared him for transport to a cell in
"Beaver 2." (Id. at ¶¶ 15-18).
During this time, Plaintiff asserts that Msgt. Lane and Lt.
Verrett continued striking him until Plaintiff cried.
(Id. at ¶ 16). Plaintiff claims that he
sustained several injuries from the alleged beating and did
not received medical care despite several requests for such.
(Id. at ¶¶ 19-20). Based on these
allegations, Plaintiff sued Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, alleging that his constitutional rights were
violated due to Defendants' deliberate indifference to
his serious medical needs and use of excessive force. (See
MOTION TO DISMISS
Verrett filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs claims against
him, arguing, among other things, that Plaintiff failed to
include in his Complaint any factual allegations implicating
(See Doc. 13). Plaintiff asserts that although he knows there
was a prison employee with the surname "Verrett"
involved in the alleged incident, Plaintiff is unsure whether
the person involved was Sgt. Billy Verrett or Lt. Jarod
Verrett. (Doc. 17). Because of this, Plaintiff
requests that the Court allow some discovery before requiring
him to name the correct member of the Verrett family involved
in this incident. (Id.).
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss tests the sufficiency of a
complaint against the legal standard set forth in Rule 8,
which requires "a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief."
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). "To survive a motion to dismiss, a
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009) (quoting BellAtl Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). "Determining whether a
complaint states a plausible claim for relief [is] . . . a
context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to
draw on its judicial experience and common sense."
Id. at 679. "[F]acial plausibility" exists
"when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows
the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant
is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. at
678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Hence, a
complaint need not set out "detailed factual
allegations, " but something "more than labels and
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
cause of action" is required. Twombly, 550 U.S.
review of Plaintiffs Complaint demonstrates that other than
listing Sgt. Verrett as a defendant in this case, Plaintiff
fails to specify any acts attributable to the basis of
Plaintiffs lawsuit and for which Sgt. Verrett should remain
in this lawsuit. As such, Plaintiff has failed to satisfy
federal pleading standards and the Court must dismiss
Plaintiffs claims against Sgt. Verrett. Accordingly, Sgt.
Verrett's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 16) is GRANTED.
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
their motion for summary judgment, Defendants argue that
Plaintiffs deliberate medical indifference claim should be
dismissed for Plaintiffs failure to exhaust administrative
remedies before filing his lawsuit. Specifically, Defendants
argue that Plaintiff failed to complete grievance procedures
for ARP No. EHCC-2016-0077 ("ARP No. 77") and ARP
No. EHCC-2016-0136 ("ARP No. 136"), which address
Defendants' alleged failure to provide constitutionally
adequate medical care. (Doc. 16).
Standard of Review
to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, "[t]he court
shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there
is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). In determining whether the movant is
entitled to summary judgment, the court views the facts in
the light most favorable to the non-movant and draws all