Melancon v. Ascension Parish Sheriff Office et al

Filing 21

RULING denying 19 Letter, treated as a motion for appointment of counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 01/13/2015. (BCL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

WAYNE A. MELANCON, JR. (DOC #157797)
VERSUS

CIVIL ACTION

ASCENSION PARISH SHERIFF
OFFICE, ET AL

NUMBER 14-486-JJB-SCR

RULING ON MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Plaintiff filed a letter on December 31, 2014 which shall be
treated as a motion for appointment of counsel.

Record document

number 19.
Pro

se

plaintiff,

an

inmate

currently

confined

at

Hunt

Correctional Center, St. Gabriel, Louisiana, filed this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Ascension Parish Jail Warden
Raymond L. McNeil, Dr. Tie Gautreau, Dy. Sheriff Jon Small,
Internal Affairs Officer Lt. Jude Richard, Warden Paul Hall, Lt.
Col. Bobby Weber and Sheriff Jeffery F. Wiley.1

Generally, the

plaintiff alleged that between July 2012 and August 2014, he was
denied adequate medical treatment, subjected to verbal abuse,
issued false disciplinary reports, and received no response to
correspondence and administrative grievances.

Specifically, the

plaintiff alleged that his eyes were injured when Dy. Small pointed
a laser in his eyes to wake him, he was verbally abused, Dr.
Gautreau misdiagnosed him as suffering from pink eye, Lt. McNeil
1

Record document number 4.

failed to promptly deliver a package from his mother, he was issued
a false disciplinary report for possession of contraband, the
defendants failed to protect him from attack by a fellow inmate, he
was denied medical treatment and pain medication for injuries
sustained during the assault by a fellow inmate, he was denied
access to an inmate counsel, Warden Hall failed to assist him in
obtaining help from the district attorney, he was denied medical
treatment for complaints of ear pain, loss of hearing and bleeding
in his mouth, his pill crusher was confiscated by a nurse, and he
was denied dental treatment to repair his teeth, all in violation
of his constitutional rights.
Although the plaintiff alleged numerous claims, the factual
basis for those claims is not complex.

Liberally construed, the

plaintiff claims fall into four categories: denial of adequate
medical and dental treatment, failure to protect him from attack by
a fellow inmate, verbal abuse, and issuance of a false disciplinary
report.
A

prison

official

may

be

held

liable

under

the

Eighth

Amendment for acting with deliberate indifference to an

inmate's

health

faces

or

safety

only

if

he

knows

that

the

inmate

a

substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by
failing to take reasonable steps to abate it.
511 U.S. 825, 114 S.Ct. 1970 (1994).

Farmer v. Brennan,

The official must both be

aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a

2

substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must draw the
inference.

Id.

To prevail on an Eighth Amendment claim for deprivation of
medical care a prisoner must prove that the care was denied and
that the denial constituted "deliberate indifference to serious
medical needs."

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 97 S.Ct. 285

(1976); Johnson v. Treen, 759 F.2d 1236 (5th Cir. 1985).

Whether

the plaintiff received the treatment he felt he should have is not
the issue.

Estelle v. Gamble, supra; Woodall v. Foti, 648 F.2d 268

(5th Cir. 1981). Unsuccessful medical treatment does not give rise
to a Section 1983 cause of action.

Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d

320 (5th Cir. 1991), Johnson v. Treen, supra.
or

medical

malpractice

constitutional violation.

does

not

rise

to

Negligence, neglect
the

level

of

a

Varnado, supra.

Allegations of verbal abuse alone do not present claims under
section 1983.

“Mere threatening language and gestures of a

custodial officer do not, even if true, amount to a constitutional
violation.”

McFadden v. Lucas, 713 F.2d 143 (5th Cir.), cert.

denied, 464 U.S. 998, 104 S.Ct. 499 (1983); Burnette v. Phelps, 621
F.Supp. 1157 (M.D. La. 1985); Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028, 1033
n.7 (2d Cir. 1973).
Under § 1983, allegations that the plaintiff was reported or
punished for an act he did not commit do not amount to a denial of
due process where the state provides a procedurally adequate
3

hearing.

Collins v. King, 743 F.2d 248 (5th Cir. 1984).

Plaintiff appears capable of adequately investigating his
case.

He filed a factually detailed complaint setting forth

clearly and concisely the details of the alleged incident.
Appointment of counsel would likely be of some benefit to the
plaintiff, but it would do little to assist in the examination of
the witnesses or shaping the issues for trial.
Consideration of the factors set forth in Ulmer v. Chancellor,
691 F.2d 209, 211 (5th Cir. 1982), does not support a finding that
appointment of counsel for the plaintiff is either required or
warranted.
Accordingly, the plaintiff’s Motion for the Appointment of
Counsel is denied.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, January 13, 2015.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4