Francis et al v. Boeker et al

Filing 73

RULING AND ORDER granting 47 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Stephanie Lamartiniere. The plaintiffs claims against defendant are dismissed with prejudice. The Court declines the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction in connection with any potential state law claims, and this action is dismissed in its entirety. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 6/23/2020. (KMW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LIONEL FRANCIS (#470626)

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS
NO. 16-496-SDD-RLB
UNKNOWN BOEKER, ET AL.

RULING AND ORDER
This matter has been remanded to the Court solely for the Court to consider
whether defendant Lamartiniere is entitled to summary judgment in light of the facts
asserted in the plaintiff’s Declaration (R. Doc. 64-1, p. 12-13). The plaintiff asserts that
defendant Lamartiniere failed to intervene in the use of excessive force by Sgt. Rogers
and other staff members. A use of force by a prison official is excessive and violates the
Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution only when such force is applied
maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm rather than in a good
faith effort to maintain or restore discipline. Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34, 37 (2010),
quoting Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 7 (1992).
A defendant security officer may be found responsible for failure to intervene and
take reasonable measures to protect an inmate from another officer's excessive use of
force. See Whitley v. Hanna, 726 F.3d 631, 646 (5th Cir. 2013) citing Hale v. Townley, 45
F.3d 914, 916 (5th Cir. 1995). The Fifth Circuit has reiterated that “an officer may be
liable under §1983 under a theory of bystander liability where the officer ‘(1) knows that
a fellow officer is violating an individual's constitutional rights; (2) has a reasonable
opportunity to prevent the harm; and (3) chooses not to act.’ ” See,

Document Number: 60833

1

F.3d 631, 646 (5th Cir. 2013), quoting Randall v. Prince George's County., Md., 302 F.3d
188, 204 (4th Cir. 2002). See also, Kitchen v. Dallas County, Tex., 759 F.3d 468, 480 (5th
Cir. 2014).
A reasonable opportunity to intercede and prevent the constitutional violation is
“[t]he focus of the bystander-liability inquiry.” Malone v. City of Fort Worth, Tex., Civil
Action No. 4:09-CV-634, 2014 WL 5781001, *16 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 6, 2014). In resolving
whether a plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a bystander liability claim, the court also
considers whether an officer has acquiesced in the alleged constitutional violation.
Whitley v. Hanna, supra, 726 F.3d at 646, citing Hale v. Townley, supra, 45 F.3d at 919.
A bystander officer's liability is analyzed under a “deliberate indifference standard,” that
requires a plaintiff to demonstrate that the officer actually knew of an excessive risk to the
inmate's safety and disregarded that risk. Oby v. Sander, Civil Action No. 4:14cv45, 2015
WL 4496426, *3 (N.D. Miss. July 23, 2015). Mere negligence or even gross negligence
is not enough. See, E.A.F.F. v. Gonzalez, 600 Fed. Appx. 205, 210 (5th Cir.), cert.
denied, 135 S.Ct. 2364 (2015). The officer “must both be aware of facts from which the
inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also
draw the inference.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994).
Here, the plaintiff states in his Declaration that, when defendant Lamartiniere saw
the plaintiff on the floor, she instructed Sgt. Rogers and other staff members to pick the
plaintiff up from the floor. After the plaintiff was picked up and again ended up on the
floor with various security officers restraining him, defendant Lamartiniere again
instructed Sgt. Rogers and other staff members to pick the plaintiff up from the floor.

Document Number: 60833

2

As such, the plaintiff’s Declaration makes it clear that defendant Lamartiniere did
not acquiesce in the alleged use of excessive force, disregard the risk to the plaintiff, or
choose not to act. Rather, the plaintiff states that defendant Lamartiniere intervened on
two separate occasions. Considering the plaintiff’s Declaration, defendant Lamartiniere
is entitled to summary judgment. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment (R. Doc. 47) filed on
behalf of defendant Lamartiniere is granted, dismissing the plaintiff’s claims against
defendant Lamartiniere with prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court declines the exercise of supplemental
jurisdiction in connection with any potential state law claims, and this action is dismissed
in its entirety. Judgment will be entered accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 23rd day of June, 2020.

S

________________________________
SHELLY D. DICK
CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Document Number: 60833

3