United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
RULING AND ORDER
A. JACKSON JUDGE.
the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.
60), filed by Defendants. Plaintiff filed a
Memorandum in Opposition (Doc. 64). For the reasons stated
herein, the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.
60), is DENIED.
December 26, 2015, Plaintiff Brian Roberts was an inmate in
custody at Elayn Hunt Correctional Center in St. Gabriel,
Louisiana. (Doc. 60-1 at p. 2). While housed in Golf 2, B
Tier, he collapsed due to what both parties agree was a
stroke. Ibid. Upon observing Plaintiff's
condition, Sergeant Nakyra Johnson activated her beeper to
call other officers to the scene. (Doc. 64 at p. 1).
alleges that when Defendants Major Shannon Lessard and Major
Kevin Durbin arrived at the scene, they asserted that
Plaintiff had consumed a substance known as
“mojo.” Id. Plaintiff asserts that an EMT
arrived thereafter, and upon hearing Defendants' remarks,
released Plaintiff back into the custody of Majors Lessard
and Durbin. Id. It is undisputed that after the EMT
assessed Plaintiff, he was taken to the Assessment Triage
Unit (“ATU”) for further evaluation. Id.
asserts that in the ATU, rather than being examined or
treated medically by a doctor, Major Lessard, Major Durbin
and Lieutenant Slater ordered that Plaintiff be drug tested,
the results of which were negative. (Doc. 64 at p. 2).
However, Defendants continued to insist that he was
intoxicated. Ibid. Plaintiff asserts that he was not
permitted to see a doctor and did not undergo additional
medical evaluation. Id. Plaintiff asserts that
throughout the episode he continued to have serious problems
speaking and communicating. Id.
Plaintiff left the ATU, he was transferred to administrative
segregation as punishment for intoxication. Id. It
is undisputed that shortly after midnight, Plaintiff was
found on the floor of the cell, half-conscious, covered in
his own vomit, pupils constricted and non-reactive, with
slurred speech and the inability to move. (Doc. 62 at p. 3).
This prompted his return to ATU. Ibid.
further undisputed that Plaintiff was then administered
Narcan, which is used to treat narcotic overdoses in
emergencies. (Doc. 64 at p. 3). At roughly 5:30 A.M.,
Plaintiff alleges that he was finally examined by a doctor
who diagnosed a stroke. Id. Around noon, Plaintiff
was transferred to Our Lady of the Lake Medical Center.
Id. The hospital physician indicated that the damage
from the stroke had already occurred, and that medical or
surgical intervention would no longer make a difference.
Id. at 4. Plaintiff alleges that had Plaintiff been
brought to the hospital earlier, the severity of the stroke
could have been lessened. Id. Plaintiff ultimately
suffered left sided paralysis and several other stroke
related symptoms. Id.
filed suit against Defendants Major Shannon Lessard,
Lieutenant Lindell Slater, and Major Durbin, asserting claims
for deliberate medical indifference and negligence under
to Rule 56, “[t]he [C]ourt 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 reasonable inferences in the non-movant's
favor. Coleman v. Houston Independent School Dist,
113 F.3d 528, 533 (5th Cir. 1997).
proper motion for summary judgment is made, the non-movant
must set forth specific facts showing there is a genuine
issue for trial. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986). At this stage, the Court does not
evaluate the credibility of witnesses, weigh the evidence, or
resolve factual disputes. Int'l Shortstop, Inc. v.
Rally's, Inc., 939 F.2d 1257, 1263 (5th Cir. 1991),
cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1059 (1992). However, if the evidence
in the record is such that a reasonable jury, drawing all
inferences in favor of the non-moving party, could arrive at
a verdict in that party's favor, the motion for summary
judgment must be denied. Int'l Shortstop, Inc.,
939 F.2d at 1263.
other hand, the non-movant's burden is not satisfied by
some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts, or by
conclusory allegations, unsubstantiated assertions, or a mere
scintilla of evidence. Little v. Liquid Air Corp.,
37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994). Summary judgment is
appropriate if the non-movant “fails to make a showing
sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential
to that party's case.” Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986). In other words,
summary judgment will be appropriate only “if the
pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and
admissions on file, together with affidavits if any, show
that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and
that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.” Sherman v. Hallbauer, 455 F.2d 1236,
1241 (5th Cir. 1972).