United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
take notice that the attached Magistrate Judge's Report
has been filed with the Clerk of the U.S. District Court.
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), you have 14 days
after being served with the attached report to file written
objections to the proposed findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and recommendations set forth 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 accepted by the District Court.
NO EXTENSION OF TIME SHALL BE GRANTED TO FILE WRITTEN
OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT.
JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment filed on behalf
of defendant Deputy Warden Stephanie Lamartiniere (R. Doc.
47). The Motion is opposed. See R. Docs. 49, 54, and
se plaintiff, an inmate confined at the Louisiana State
Penitentiary (“LSP”), Angola, Louisiana, filed
this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the
Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et
seq. (“ADA”) against Stephanie Lamartiniere,
Capt. Boeker, and Sgt. Rogers complaining that his
constitutional rights were violated due to the use of
excessive force, failure to protect him from the use of
excessive force, and deliberate indifference to his serious
medical needs. Defendant Lamartiniere moves for summary
judgment relying upon the pleadings, a Statement of
Undisputed Facts, a certified copy of the plaintiff's
pertinent administrative remedy proceeding including a
conventionally filed audio recording, her own Affidavit, the
Affidavit of Sgt. Morgan Rogers, the Affidavit of Captain
Aurielle Boeker, a certified copy of LSP Directive 09.002 for
Use of Force, a certified copy of the plaintiff's Conduct
Report, and a certified copy of the plaintiff's medical
and mental health records. The plaintiff opposes the Motion
relying upon the pleadings and an unverified declaration.
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.
Complaint as amended (R. Docs. 1, 5), the plaintiff alleges
the following: On December 22, 2015, the plaintiff attempted
to commit suicide by overdosing on pain pills. He was seen by
an EMT and was sent to wait in the “bullpen.” As
the plaintiff was being escorted to the bullpen by Sgt.
Rogers, he stopped walking because he had not yet been seen
by a doctor or a psychiatrist. He asked why he had not been
seen by a doctor or someone from mental health, and Sgt.
Rogers responded in a hostile tone that, “He didn't
have time for that sh*t.” Sgt. Rogers then aggressively
grabbed the plaintiff by his restraints, flipped him upside
down, and slammed the plaintiff forcefully onto the floor
onto the top of his left shoulder. The plaintiff remained on
the floor due to excruciating pain caused by a cut on his
later, defendant Lamartiniere and Capt. Boeker arrived and
stood over the plaintiff as he lay on the floor in pain.
Defendant Lamartiniere instructed Sgt. Rogers to pick the
plaintiff up. Sgt. Rogers and three other staff members then
picked the plaintiff up by his arms and leg shackles causing
the plaintiff to flinch due to the injury to his left
shoulder. The plaintiff was then dropped to the floor, and a
staff member jumped onto the plaintiff and placed his knee in
the plaintiff's back while applying pressure to the
plaintiff's ankles. The plaintiff repeatedly yelled that
he was not resisting, but the staff member continued to apply
inmate, Derrick Scott, inquired as to why the plaintiff, a
mental health inmate, was being mistreated and defendant
Lamartiniere informed inmate Scott that the situation had
“nothing to do” with him. Inmate Scott continued
to question the treatment of the plaintiff, and defendant
Lamartiniere the stated, “Okay, that's enough. Pick
him up.” Sgt. Rogers then picked the plaintiff up by
his arms and leg shackles. The plaintiff screamed due to pain
in his left shoulder, but was ignored and thrown into the
bullpen. The plaintiff began hitting his head on the door
while stating that something was wrong with his shoulder, and
threatened to continue doing so until he was provided with
medical treatment and seen by someone from mental health.
plaintiff was then taken out of the bullpen and his shoulder
was x-rayed. The doctor stated that there was a slight
dislocation of the left shoulder. The plaintiff was not seen
by anyone from mental health.
Lamartiniere first asserts that the plaintiff's ADA
claims are subject to dismissal because Plaintiff has failed
to exhaust available administrative remedies relative thereto
as mandated by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. Pursuant to this
statute, 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.
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 provide “‘time and
opportunity to address complaints internally.'”
Johnson v. Johnson, supra, 385 F.3d at 516,
quoting Porter v. Nussle, supra, 534 U.S. at 525.
Further, the degree of specificity necessary in a
prisoner's grievance should be evaluated in light of this
intended purpose. Id.
review of the plaintiff's pertinent administrative
grievance, i.e., the grievance that he filed
relative to the claims asserted in this proceeding, the Court
concludes that the defendant's motion is well-taken in
this regard and should be granted. The plaintiff makes no
mention of any ADA claims in his grievance. See R.
Doc. 47-6, p. 11-12. As such, defendant Lamartiniere was not
provided with ...