Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hebert v. City of Baton Rouge

United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana

November 1, 2018




         Please take notice that the attached Magistrate Judge's Report has been filed with the Clerk of the United States District Court.

         In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), you have fourteen (14) days after being served with the attached Report to file written objections to the proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendations therein. Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations within 14 days after being served will bar you, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge which have been accepted by the District Court.



         This matter comes before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment filed on behalf of defendants Sheriff Sid Gautreaux and Warden Dennis Grimes (R. Doc. 317). This Motion is opposed. See R. Doc. 353

         The pro se plaintiff, an inmate previously confined at the East Baton Rouge Parish Prison (“EBRPP”), Baton Rouge, Louisiana, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against numerous defendants alleging that is constitutional rights were violated due to deliberate indifference to his health and serious medical conditions. The plaintiff seeks monetary, declaratory, and injunctive relief.

         Defendants Gautreaux and Grimes move for summary judgment relying upon the pleadings, a Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, the Affidavit of Warden Grimes, and the Affidavit of Sheriff Gautreaux. The plaintiff opposes the motion relying upon the pleadings, a Statement of Undisputed Facts, his own Declaration, and various exhibits as listed in Record Document 352.

         Pursuant to well-established legal principles, summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine disputed issue as to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986). A party moving for summary judgment must inform the Court of the basis for the motion and identify those portions of the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, that show that there is no such genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, supra, 477 U.S. at 323. If the moving party carries its burden of proof under Rule 56, the opposing party must direct the Court's attention to specific evidence in the record which demonstrates that the non-moving party can satisfy a reasonable jury that it is entitled to a verdict in its favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., supra, 477 U.S. at 248. This burden is not satisfied by some metaphysical doubt as to alleged material facts, by unsworn and unsubstantiated assertions, by conclusory allegations, or by a mere scintilla of evidence. Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994). Rather, Rule 56 mandates that summary judgment be entered against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, supra, 477 U.S. at 323. Summary judgment is appropriate in any case where the evidence is so weak or tenuous on essential facts that the evidence could not support a judgment in favor of the non-moving party. Little v. Liquid Air Corp., supra, 37 F.3d at 1075. In resolving a motion for summary judgment, the Court must review the facts and inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and the Court may not evaluate the credibility of witnesses, weigh the evidence, or resolve factual disputes. International Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally's, Inc., 939 F.2d 1257, 1263 (5th Cir. 1991).

         In his Complaint, the plaintiff alleges the following with regards to defendants Gautreaux and Grimes: Due to overcrowding at the EBRPP, the plaintiff was temporarily housed at the Pine Prairie Correctional Center (“PPCC”) between August 20, 2013 and February 4, 2014. While housed at PPCC, the plaintiff was forced to consume water that was contaminated with unsafe levels of arsenic, as evidenced by an EPA notification posted at PPCC.

         The plaintiff exhibited persistent cold symptoms, and on or about February 4, 2014, the plaintiff noticed a lump in his left calf. The lump was evaluated by a doctor at PPCC but no testing or treatment was provided. The plaintiff was diagnosed with a blood clot. The plaintiff was subsequently transferred back to the EBRPP, and on February 17, 2014 the plaintiff was seen by defendant Dr. Whitfield. The plaintiff was returned to his cell without any tests, lab work, or treatment being performed.

         In September of 2014, the plaintiff lost vision in his right eye. On October 3, 2014, the plaintiff sought treatment due to several painful and discolored lumps on his legs, arms, back, stomach and chest. The plaintiff was examined by defendant Dr. Whitfield on October 13, 2014. Dr. Whitfield ordered lab work which later revealed that the plaintiff's white blood count was extremely high. The plaintiff was transported to Tulane University Medical Center on November 4, 2014 and the plaintiff was diagnosed with chronic myelogenous leukemia (“CML”) on November 13, 2014.

         Defendants Gautreaux and Grimes are responsible for providing safe drinking water to pre-trial detainees. However, these defendants and others knew that hundreds of prisoners were being incarcerated at PPCC despite the inherent danger of exposure to water contaminated with arsenic. Defendants didn't care if anyone was harmed by consumption of the dangerous water because the only persons affected were prisoners. Defendants were well aware of the substantial risk of harm to the plaintiff's health resulting from daily ingestion of arsenic-contaminated water and, for this reason, did not return the plaintiff to PPCC after he began exhibiting symptoms of cancer. Defendants were deliberately indifferent to the plaintiff's constitutional rights.

         Defendants Gautreaux and Grimes first contend that the plaintiff's claims are subject to dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The defendants allege that the plaintiff's grievance was not timely filed. In this regard, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, the plaintiff was required to exhaust administrative remedies available to him at the prison prior to commencing a civil action in this Court with respect to prison conditions.[1] This provision is mandatory and applies broadly to “all inmate suits about prison life.” Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002). Further, a prisoner must exhaust administrative remedies by complying with applicable prison grievance procedures before filing a suit relative to prison conditions. Johnson v. Johnson, 385 F.3d 503, 517 (5th Cir. 2004). Not only must the prisoner exhaust all available remedies, but such exhaustion must be proper, including compliance with an agency's deadlines and other critical procedural rules. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006). One of the principal purposes of the administrative exhaustion requirement is to provide fair notice to prison officials of an inmate's specific complaints so as to ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.