United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lafayette Division
B. Whitehurst United States Magistrate Judge
plaintiff Patrick Gilton, proceeding in forma
pauperis, filed the instant civil rights complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 5, 2019, in the
Southern District of Iowa. [Rec. Doc. 1] An Order
transferring the matter to this Court was signed on that same
date. [Rec. Doc. 3] Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint in
this Court on April 22, 2019. [Rec. Doc. 6] He is
incarcerated at the St. Mary Parish Jail (SMPJ) in
Centerville, Louisiana, and complains of the conditions of
confinement at that facility, as well as denied or delayed
medical care. Plaintiff has named SMPJ Warden Paul Scott and
SMPJ Assistant Warden Bruce Cliffton as defendants. This
matter has been referred to the undersigned for review,
report, and recommendation in accordance with the provisions
of 28 U.S.C. §636 and the standing orders of the Court.
first complains that prisoners are exposed to communicable
diseases, including staph infections, AIDS, boils, pink eye
and crabs from incoming inmates who are coming in
“directly from the streets, ” and not being
checked by the medical staff to be “cleared.”
complains that there are spiders and spiderwebs in the dorms
and black mold in the showers and sinks. He also complains
that there are no exit signs on the doors or blueprints of
the prison posted in case a fire breaks out and that inmates
are burning toilet paper rolls and he is inhaling black
he seeks to be compensated for inadequate dental care
regarding a toothache, and inadequate medical care after a
fall on an uncovered drain in the bathroom.
has sued Paul Scott and Bruce Cliffton in their supervisory
capacities as Warden and Assistant Warden of SMPJ. Plaintiff
is hereby advised: “Supervisory officials may be held
liable only if: (i) they affirmatively participate in acts
that cause constitutional deprivations; or (ii) implement
unconstitutional policies that causally result in
plaintiff's injuries.” Mouille v. City of Live
Oak, Tex., 977 F.2d 924, 929 (5th Cir.1992), cert.
denied, 1');">508 U.S. 951, 113 S.Ct. 2443');">113 S.Ct. 2443, 124 L.Ed.2d 660
(1993). “Vicarious liability does not apply to §
1983 claims.” Pierce v. Texas Dept. of Crim.
Justice, Inst. Div., 1146');">37 F.3d 1146, 1150 (5th Cir.1994),
cert. denied, 14 U.S. 1107');">514 U.S. 1107, 115 S.Ct. 1957');">115 S.Ct. 1957, 131
L.Ed.2d 849 (1995). “Personal involvement is an
essential element of a civil rights cause of action.”
Thompson v. Steele, 1');">709 F.2d 381, 382 (5th Cir.),
cert. denied, 464 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 248');">104 S.Ct. 248, 78
L.Ed.2d 236 (1983). In other words, to the extent that
plaintiff seeks to name supervisory officials as defendants,
he must allege facts sufficient to demonstrate either
personal involvement or the implementation of
unconstitutional policies by that defendant.
alleges that he received inadequate medical care with respect
to an ankle/foot injury he received when he stepped on an
uncovered drain, as well as a toothache.
appears that plaintiff is a pre-trial detainee. As a pretrial
detainee, Plaintiff's constitutional rights flow from the
Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause rather than the
Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual
punishment. Because they have not yet been convicted of the
crime with which they are charged, pretrial detainees have a
due process right not to be punished for that crime. Bell
v. Wolfish, 1 U.S. 520');">441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979). The standard to
apply in analyzing a denial of medical care claim asserted by
a pretrial detainee depends upon whether the claim is
directed to a “condition of confinement” or to an
“episodic act or omission.” Scott v.
Moore, 114 F.3d 51');">114 F.3d 51, 53 (5th Cir. 1997), quoting Hare
v. City of Corinth, 74 F.3d 633, 644 (5th Cir. 1996).
Plaintiff's complaint is directed to episodic acts or
omissions. Under the “episodic act” standard,
“a state official's episodic act or omission
violates a pretrial detainee's due process right to
medical care if the official acts with subjective deliberate
indifference to the detainee's rights.” Thus, the
plaintiff must show both that he suffered a sufficiently
serious deprivation and that this deprivation was brought
about by the deliberate indifference of prison officials.
Hare, 74 F.3d at 643 and 650.
the same standard applicable to convicted prisoners whose
claims are analyzed under the Eighth Amendment. In order to
prevail on such claims, convicts must establish that the
delay in providing medical care was “sufficiently
harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious
medical needs.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97
(1976). A showing of deliberate indifference with regard to
medical treatment requires the inmate to submit evidence that
prison officials “‘refused to treat him, ignored
his complaints, intentionally treated him incorrectly, or
engaged in any similar conduct that would clearly ...