Lewis et al v. Cain et al

Filing 623

RULING denying 603 Motion for Reconsideration or, in the Alternative, to Certify Ruling for Interlocutory Appeal and granting 605 Motion for Status Conference to discuss the remedy phase in this matter. A status conference is set for 12/15/2021 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 3. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 10/08/2021. (NLT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

JOSEPH LEWIS, JR., ET AL.

CIVIL DOCKET

VERSUS

15-318-SDD-RLB

BURL CAIN, ET AL.

RULING
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration or, in
the Alternative, to Certify Ruling for Interlocutory Appeal.1 Plaintiffs have filed an
Opposition2 to this motion. For the following reasons, Defendants’ Motion is denied.
I.

BACKGROUND
Following an eleven-day bench trial3 in this matter, post-trial briefing, and a site

visit by the undersigned, the Court entered a Ruling4 on March 31, 2021, finding
Defendants liable for deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of all inmates
housed at Louisiana State Penitentiary (“LSP” or “Angola”) in the manner and means of
the systemic delivery of health care, in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United
States Constitution. The Court also found Defendants liable for violating the Americans
with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Rehabilitation Act (“RA”) as to disabled inmates, in
some respects. The Court specifically noted that it would not enter injunctive relief until

1

Rec. Doc. No. 603.
Rec. Doc. No. 582.
3
Rec. Doc. No. 536.
4
Rec. Doc. No. 594.
2

69475 

the

conclusion

of

a

remedy

phase

and

that

evidence

of

subsequent

improvements/changes would be credited to Defendants, where demonstrated.5
Defendants have moved for reconsideration of the Court’s Ruling, arguing that the
Court improperly based its Eighth Amendment findings on stale and outdated evidence.
Defendants list several patients referenced by the Court who received treatment going
back to 2013, in some instances.6 Defendants contend the Court did not consider any
evidence beyond September 30, 2016, two years before the trial began.7
Alternatively, Defendants ask the Court to certify its Ruling for interlocutory appeal.
II.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Although it has been noted that the Federal Rules “do not recognize a ‘motion for

reconsideration’ in haec verba,”8 the Fifth Circuit has “consistently recognized that such
a motion may challenge a judgment or order under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
54(b) [or] 59(e) . . .”9 The Court finds that, because the challenged Ruling is not a final
judgment, Rule 54(b) is the proper standard to apply.10
Rule 54(b) provides that:
[A]ny order or other decision . . . that adjudicates fewer than all the claims
or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all of the parties does not end the
action as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised at any time
before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties'
rights and liabilities.

5

Id. at 122; see also Rec. Doc. No. 419 at 3.
Rec. Doc. No. 603-1 at 2-3.
7
Id. at 3.
8
Lavespere v. Niagra Mach. & Tool Works, Inc., 910 F.2d 167,173 (5th Cir. 1990).
9
Lightfoot v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 2012 WL 711842, *2 (E.D. La. 2012).
10
See Austin v. Kroger Texas, L.P., 864 F.3d 326, 336 (5th Cir. 2017)(“Because the district court was not
asked to reconsider a judgment, the district court’s denial of Austin’s motion to reconsider its order denying
leave to file a surreply should have been considered under Rule 54(b)”).
6

69475 

Accordingly, under Rule 54(b), “a court retains jurisdiction over all the claims in a suit and
may alter any earlier decision at its discretion until final judgment has been issued on a
claim or on the case as a whole.”11 Compared to the “stricter”12 analysis required by Rule
59(e), “[d]istrict courts have considerable discretion in deciding whether to reconsider an
interlocutory order”13 under 54(b). “However, this broad discretion must be exercised
sparingly in order to forestall the perpetual reexamination of orders and the resulting
burdens and delays.”14 Therefore, “rulings should only be reconsidered where the moving
party has presented substantial reasons for reconsideration.”15 “There are three major
grounds justifying reconsideration: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the
availability of new evidence; and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest
injustice.”16
Defendants ostensibly argue that the Court committed manifest error by failing to
follow the principles set forth in Valentine v. Collier.17 In Valentine, inmates at state
geriatric prison filed an action against prison officials, alleging that prison officials' failure
to implement adequate protections against transmission of COVID-19 violated the Eighth
Amendment under § 1983, the ADA, and the RA.18 The matter proceeded to a bench trial
as a class action and resulted in the district court entering a permanent injunction. The
defendants appealed, and the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court and vacated the

11

Livingston Downs Racing Ass'n, Inc. v. Jefferson Downs Corp., 259 F. Supp. 2d 471, 475 (M.D. La.
2002).
12
Adams v. United Ass'n of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipefitting Indus. of the United
States & Canada, AFL-CIO, Loc. 198, 495 F. Supp. 3d 392, 395 (M.D. La. 2020).
13
Keys v. Dean Morris, LLP, 2013 WL 2387768, *1 (M.D. La. 2013).
14
Southern Snow Mfg. Co., Inc. v. SnoWizard Holdings, Inc., 921 F. Supp. 2d 548, 564–65 (E.D. La. 2013).
15
State of La. v. Sprint Communications Co., 899 F. Supp. 282, 284 (M.D. La. Sept. 8, 1995).
16
J.M.C. v. Louisiana Bd. of Elementary and Secondary Educ, 584 F. Supp. 2d 894, 896 (M.D. La. 2008)
(quoting Shields v. Shetler, 120 F.R.D. 123, 126 (D. Colo. 1988)).
17
993 F.3d 270 (5th Cir. 2021).
18
Id.

69475 

injunction. The court noted that, “‘[a] permanent injunction is appropriate only if a
defendant's past conduct gives rise to an inference that, in light of present circumstances,
there is a reasonable likelihood of future transgressions.’”19

Defendants herein

particularly rely on the following principles articulated in Valentine:
When there is a possible constitutional violation that is likely to continue
over time as in a prison injunction case, we consider the evidence from the
time suit is filed to the judgment. Deliberate indifference is determined
based on prison officials’ “current attitudes and conduct.” The evidence
must show over the course of the timeline that officials “knowingly and
unreasonably disregard[ed] an objectively intolerable risk of harm, and that
they will continue to do so; and finally to establish eligibility for an injunction,
the inmate must demonstrate the continuance of that disregard during the
remainder of the litigation and into the future.”20
Defendants contend all the findings of this Court are based on evidence predating
September 30, 2016; thus, holding that Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief based on
evidence that is now outdated fails to satisfy the requirements of Valentine for the
issuance of injunctive relief.
First, the Court does not find that Valentine is particularly applicable to the facts of
this case. While the Valentine court did address a deliberate indifference claim regarding
the health care being provided by the prison, it was entirely within the context of the
prison’s response to ever-changing health guidelines, CDC regulations, and
recommendations in response to the novel COVID-19 pandemic sweeping through the
country. Further, in Valentine, there was evidence before the district court that prison
officials were trying to respond to the rapid changes in general and prison health
guidelines for addressing the pandemic. There was no evidence that the prison officials

19

Id. at 280 (quoting Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Life Partners Holdings, Inc., 854 F.3d 765, 784 (5th Cir. 2017)
(internal quotations omitted) (cleaned up).
20
Id. at 282 (internal citations omitted).

69475 

ignored the risk of COVID-19; thus, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court and found
that there was no evidence of deliberate indifference.
In the Court’s view, the established facts and the conduct on the part of prison
officials in Valentine are vastly different from the facts of the present case, where unlike
Valentine, this Court has not issued injunctive relief and has consistently stated that it
would consider the current state of circumstances at LSP in crafting satisfactory injunctive
relief. Defendants’ claim that injunctive relief crafted by this Court will be based on
outdated evidence is demonstrably wrong. In its bifurcation order, the Court found that
bifurcation of liability and injunctive relief, along with “limiting the historical scope of the
evidence on liability” to “evidence of the conditions as they existed on or before
September 30, 2016,”21 was a “reasonable response to the problems and needs
confronting the court’s fair administration of justice.”22
Further, the Court did not solely base its liability findings on the patients mentioned
in Defendants’ motion. The Ruling speaks for itself as to the breadth of evidence the
Court considered. But particularly, the Court found Plaintiffs’ experts - Dr. Puisis, Nurse
LaMarre, and Dr. Vassallo - to be highly credible and persuasive, and their expert reports
were admitted into evidence. Their testimony and reports included discussion of these
patients, and numerous others, but the experts’ testimony and reports did not solely rely
upon patient records. These experts made site visits to LSP, observed the current
conditions and operations, and applied applicable national standards to their observations
in reaching their conclusions about the health care system at LSP.

21
22

The massive

This date was the close of the discovery period.
Rec. Doc. No. 419 at 3 (quoting Degen v. United States, 517 U.S. 820, 823–824 (1996)(emphasis added).

69475 

evidentiary documents together with eleven days of live testimony presented at trial
encompassed incidents well within the discovery period, and the totality of all the
evidence submitted in this case formed the basis for the Court’s findings. Indeed, the
Court made numerous findings regarding its evaluation of the “current” management of
the delivery of health care at LSP by Dr. Randy Lavespere. The Court considered, inter
alia, evidence of the “current” staffing numbers, medication administration, use of inmate
orderlies, budgeting, credentialing, peer review, and mortality review, based on
documents offered and admitted by both Parties and the live testimony regarding the
current state of health care at LSP leading up to and at the time of trial.

The Court’s

liability findings were based on evidence of the “current attitudes and conduct” of LSP
officials at the time of trial. The Court found, based on Dr. Lavespere’s general testimony,
that he saw no problems with his management of health care at LSP from an
administrative standpoint or the actual care being provided to sick inmates. The Court
also performed a site visit, at the request of both Parties, months after completion of the
bench trial, and observed no changes to some of the areas of concern (medical records
and acute care services being two). Thus, the Court reasonably concluded from the
evidence before it that unconstitutional practices were likely to continue.
Additionally, reference to evidence before the discovery period was also necessary
to evaluate the subjective knowledge requirement and to determine whether an ongoing
pattern existed and continued into the time period to be addressed at trial. The Court
referenced evidence going back to 1989. Obviously, the historical evidence of longstanding problems with the health care system at LSP will not be used in fashioning
injunctive relief; it was nevertheless an important factor in the Court’s determination of
69475 

Defendants’ subjective knowledge of the serious risks of harm presented in the delivery
of health care at LSP for decades before and up to the time of trial.
Accordingly, the Court denies Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration.
III.

INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL
Alternatively, Defendants ask this Court to certify its Ruling for interlocutory appeal

under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), which provides that a district judge may certify an order for
interlocutory appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals when: (1) the order involves “a
controlling question of law,” (2) there is “substantial ground for difference of opinion” on
the question presented, and (3) an immediate appeal would “materially advance the
ultimate termination of the litigation.”23

A district court cannot certify an order for

interlocutory appeal unless all three criteria are present.24

In determining whether

certification is appropriate, the Court is mindful that interlocutory appeal is “exceptional”
and “does not lie simply to determine the correctness of a judgment.”25
Indeed, courts in this district have held that, “[a] substantial ground for difference
of opinion ‘usually only arises out of a genuine doubt as to the correct applicable legal
standard relied on in the order.’”26 Furthermore, “‘[a]n interlocutory appeal assuredly does
not lie simply to determine the correctness of a judgment.’”27 Finally, “[d]isagreement with
the district court’s ruling is insufficient to establish a substantial ground for a difference of

23

28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
See Aparicio v. Swan Lake, 643 F.2d 1109, 1110 n. 2 (5th Cir.1981) (“Section 1292(b) sets out three
criteria all of which must be met before the district court may properly certify an interlocutory order for
appeal.”).
25
David v. Signal Intern, LLC, 37 F.Supp.3d 836, 839 (E.D. La. 2014)(citing Clark–Dietz & Assocs.-Eng'rs,
Inc. v. Basic Constr. Co., 702 F.2d 67, 68–69 (5th Cir.1983)).
26
United States v. Louisiana Generating, LLC, No. 09-100-JJB, 2012 WL 4588437 (M.D. La. Oct. 2,
2012)(quoting Property One, Inc. v. USAgencies, L.L.C., 830 F.Supp.2d 170, 182-83 (M.D. La. 2011).
27
Id. at *2, quoting Clark-Dietz, 702 F.2d at 69).
24

69475 

opinion.”28
The Court finds that Defendants have not satisfied these requirements. In the
Court’s view, Defendants simply disagree with the Court’s weighing of the evidence and
credibility of witnesses in reaching its conclusions regarding liability. Because the Court
determines that Defendants wish to “simply determine the correctness” of the Court’s
Ruling, the Motion seeking certification of the Ruling for interlocutory appeal is also
DENIED.
IV.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration or, in the

Alternative, to Certify Ruling for Interlocutory Appeal29 is DENIED. Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Status Conference30 to discuss the remedy phase in this matter is GRANTED. A status
conference is set for 12/15/2021 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 3. Counsel are advised that
the use of masks and social distancing shall be required during this conference, and
counsel should familiarize themselves with all COVID-19 protocols implemented by this
Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana on October 8, 2021.

S

CHIEF JUDGE SHELLY D. DICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

28

Id., citing Ryan v. Flowserve Corp., 444 F.Supp.2d 718, 724 (N.D. Tex. 2006).
Rec. Doc. No. 603.
30
Rec. Doc. No. 605.
29

69475