Marzett v. Tigner et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM ORDER: Directing plaintiff to amend complaint. Pro Se Response due by 6/7/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph H L Perez-Montes on 5/8/2018. (crt,Haik, K)

a
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
DELMON MARZETT,
Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:18-CV-110-P

VERSUS

JUDGE DEE D. DRELL

WARDEN LIBBY TIGNER, ET
AL.,
Defendant

MAGISTRATE JUDGE PEREZ-MONTES

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before the Court is a civil rights complaint (42 U.S.C. § 1983) filed by pro se
Plaintiff Delmon Marzett (“Marzett”) (#303968). Marzett is an inmate in the custody
of the Louisiana Department of Corrections, incarcerated at the Dixon Correctional
Institute in Jackson, Louisiana.

Marzett claims his constitutional rights were

violated by Defendants at the River’s Correctional Center and the Orleans Parish Jail
when he was incarcerated at that those facilities.
I.

Background
Marzett complains that he was arrested in New Orleans, but transported to

University Medical Center because his knee was swollen and infected following a
recent knee surgery. (Doc. 5, p. 4). After treatment at the hospital, Marzett was
returned to the Orleans Parish Jail. Because Marzett had a court appearance in
Orleans Parish, he was restrained with shackles on his hands and feet, which were
connected to a metal box at Marzett’s hip. (Doc. 5, p. 4). Marzett was required to
walk to the transport van while restrained, despite his knee issues. (Doc. 5, p. 4).

Marzett alleges that he fell while attempting to exit the van at the courthouse.
Marzett claims he hit his head on the concrete, rendering him unconscious. (Doc. 5,
p. 4). Marzett was transported back to the hospital. According to Marzett, an MRI
indicated severe damage to his spine. (Doc. 5, p. 4). Marzett claims that he is still in
extreme pain. (Doc. 5, p. 4).
Marzett complains that he made repeated pleas to Orleans Parish Sheriff
Gusman for medical treatment, which were ignored. (Doc. 5, p. 4). Marzett was then
transferred to River’s Correctional Center. (Doc. 5, p. 4).
Marzett claims he began filling out grievances regarding his medical issues
upon his arrival at River’s Correctional Center. Marzett alleges he was deprived of
his diet tray due to a diabetic condition. When he attempted to address the issue,
Marzett was allegedly “locked up” for ten days without food or medication. (Doc. 5,
p. 5).
Marzett further complains that, when he was transported from River’s to New
Orleans for a court date, he was restrained on the bus for 22 hours without a
bathroom break or food. (Doc. 5, p. 5).
Marzett alleges that, on two occasions, inmates were allowed to have sex with
visitors in the visiting room where Marzett visited with his wife.

(Doc. 5, p. 5).

Marzett complains a female deputy groped his wife. (Doc. 5, p. 5).
Marzett complains that Captain Davis read aloud information from his
medical file in front of other prisoners. (Doc. 5, p. 5).
2

Finally, Marzett complains that he received no responses to his grievances.
(Doc. 5, p. 5).
II.

Law and Analysis
Marzett names as Defendants Captain Davis and Major Poole, security officers

at River’s Correctional Center. However, the only allegations involving Defendants
Davis or Poole are that they advised Marzett his grievances were on Warden Tigner’s
desk, and Davis read aloud some personal information from Marzett’s medical file.
(Doc. 5, p. 4).
Prison officials violate the Eighth Amendment’s proscription against cruel and
unusual punishment when they act with “deliberate indifference” to the serious
medical needs of prisoners. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, (1994); Estelle
v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105 (1976). Deliberate indifference “is an extremely high
standard to meet.” Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 346 (5th Cir. 2006) (citation
omitted). An inmate must show that prison personnel “refused to treat him, ignored
his complaints, intentionally treated him incorrectly, or engaged in any similar
conduct that would clearly evidence a wanton disregard for any serious medical
needs.” Domino v. Tex. Dep’t Crim. J., 239 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir. 2001) (quoting
Johnson v. Treen, 759 F.2d 1236, 1238 (5th Cir. 1985)).
Defendants Davis and Poole are non-medical personnel, so they could not
personally treat Marzett. Marzett does not allege that Defendants Davis and Poole
ignored his complaints or wantonly disregarded his serious medical needs. Rather,
3

Marzett indicates that Defendants Davis and Poole gave Marzett’s complaints to the
warden, and the warden actually ignored the complaints.
Marzett should amend his complaint to present allegations of deliberate
indifference by Defendants Davis and Poole, or dismiss those Defendants from the
suit.
III.

Conclusion
Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Marzett amend his complaint within thirty

(30) days of the filing of this Order to provide the information outlined above. A
failure to comply will result in the case being dismissed under Rule 41(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
8th
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in chambers in Alexandria, Louisiana, this ____
day of May, 2018.
____________________________________
Joseph H.L. Perez-Montes
United States Magistrate Judge

4