Autin v. Cooley et al

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM ORDER: Directing plaintiff to amend complaint. Pro Se Response due by 1/29/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kathleen Kay on 12/28/2017. (crt,Haik, K)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAKE CHARLES DIVISION

TROY ADAM AUTIN
DOC # 452745

:

DOCKET NO. 17-cv-1035
SECTION P

VERSUS

:

CHIEF JUDGE HICKS

TERRY COOLEY, ET AL.

:

MAGISTRATE JUDGE KAY

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Before the court is a civil rights complaint [doc. 1] filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by
plaintiff Troy Adam Autin, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this matter. Autin
is an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections and is
currently incarcerated at Rayburn Correctional Center in Angie, Louisiana. However, his
complaint relates to events that occurred while he was incarcerated at Allen Correctional Center
(“ACC”) in Kinder, Louisiana.
I.
BACKGROUND
Autin alleges that, upon his transfer from Elayn Hunt Correctional Center (“EHCC”) to
ACC in July 2016, he was taken off of his prescribed pain and mental health medications by ACC
Nurse Trish and placed on an inadequate substitute pain medication. Doc. 1, att. 2, pp. 3–4. He
maintains that he should have been transferred back to EHCC “or another D.O.C. facility that can
hold offenders with such illnesses and prescribe[] such medication,” but that Trish failed to apprise
the warden or ACC physician of his health conditions. Id. at 4.

-1-

Autin also alleges that, on August 19, 2016, he was approached on the Earth Unit by
multiple other inmates, who threatened him with physical harm. Id. He states that he informed the
sergeant working the Earth Unit of his need for protective custody, and that the sergeant “shook
her head (yes) and went into the key to report the situation . . . but the key [s]ergeant was on the
phone, so [Autin] walked toward his bed area in the back of the dormitory.” Id. There, he claims,
multiple offenders surrounded him with knives and locks placed in socks, made demands, and
began to beat and stab him. Id. at 4–5. He states that he managed to escape, and that while he was
being transported to the infirmary, he noticed Captain King, the Unit Manager/Coach, “walking
out of the gym where he spends most of his time (in a safe area).” Id. at 5.
Autin states that he was taken to hospitals in Lake Charles and Lafayette, then returned to
the ACC infirmary for his recovery. Id. at 5–6. He maintains that he “had to rehabilitate himself
from being paralyzed,” and that ACC medical staff Doctor Chatman and Nurses Trish, West,
Hebert, and Summer did not help him to clean his wounds or change his bandages, and did not
allow him to bathe or shower for seven days. Id. at 6. He also states that the medical staff would
not move his food tray where he could reach it or provide him with adequate pain medication. Id.
As a result of the stab wounds, their lack of care, and the unsanitary conditions in his cell, Autin
states that he contracted Hepatitis C. Id. He also alleges that medical staff failed to remove his
sutures in a timely manner due to Nurse West being on vacation and that his “wounds were healing
wrong and infected,” causing him to remove his own sutures. Id. at 7.
Autin further alleges that Sergeant Misty Mincil reviewed the security camera footage
relating to the beating and wrote up Autin for fighting but did not mention the stabbing, in an effort
to cover up the attack. Id. at 5. Autin claims that stabbings occur on a daily basis but also states
that ACC staff do not conduct shakedowns until someone is stabbed. Id.

-2-

Autin now files suit in this court, raising claims based on the attack against Warden Cooley,
Warden Allemond, Wayne Calabrese (president of G.E.O. Group), Captain King, and Sergeant
Mincil. He also raises claims based on his medical care against Doctor Chatman, Nurse Trish,
Nurse Hebert, Nurse Summer, and Nurse West. In relief he seeks compensatory and punitive
damages as well as declaratory relief. Doc. 1, att. 2, pp. 12–13. He states that he attempted to
exhaust his administrative remedies, but was prevented from doing so because his mail was
tampered with while he was in SHU at Rayburn Correctional Center. Id. at 11.
II.
LAW & ANALYSIS
A. Frivolity Review
Autin has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this matter. Accordingly, his
complaint is subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which provides for sua sponte
dismissal of the complaint or any portion thereof if the court determines that it is frivolous or
malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against
a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)–(iii).
A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Gonzalez v. Wyatt, 157
F.3d 1016, 1019 (5th Cir. 1998). A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted if it is clear the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of his claim that would
entitle him to relief. Doe v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 153 F.3d 211, 215 (5th Cir. 1998). When
determining whether a complaint is frivolous or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, the court must accept plaintiff’s allegations as true. Horton v. Cockrell, 70 F.3d 397, 400
(5th Cir. 1995) (frivolity); Bradley v. Puckett, 157 F.3d at 1025 (failure to state a claim).

-3-

B. Section 1983
Federal law provides a cause of action against any person who, under the color of law, acts
to deprive another person of any right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution and laws
of the United States. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Thus the initial question is whether the plaintiff has alleged
that his constitutional rights have been violated. If no constitutional violation has been alleged,
there is no cognizable claim that would entitle plaintiff to relief. In order to hold the defendants
liable, a plaintiff must allege facts to show (1) that a constitutional right has been violated and (2)
that the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; that is,
that the defendant was a state actor. West v. Atkins, 108 S.Ct. 2250, 2254–55 (1988).
C. Rule 8
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a pleading to contain “a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2).
Under Rule 8, the complaint must allege “sufficient facts from which the court can determine
the existence of subject matter jurisdiction and from which the defendants can fairly appreciate
the claim made against them.” Bynum v. Terrebonne Parish Consol. Gov’t, 2011 WL 6654985, at
*3 (E.D. La. Nov. 8, 2011) (citations omitted).
D. Theories of the Complaint
Autin has adequately pleaded his medical care claims and so no amendment is needed with
respect to the allegations against defendants Chatman, Trish, West, Hebert, and Summer. With
respect to the claims relating to the attack, however, he must provide more information to show
that this cause of action can survive our initial review.

-4-

1. Failure to protect
Under the Eighth Amendment, prison officials have a duty to protect inmates from violence
at the hands of other prisoners. Edmond v. Eaves, 70 Fed. App’x 159, 160 (5th Cir. 2003) (citing
Farmer v. Brennan, 114 S.Ct. 1970 (1994)). However, “[n]ot every injury suffered by a prisoner
at the hands of another rises to the level of a constitutional violation.” Horton v. Cockrell, 70 F.3d
397, 400 (5th Cir. 1995). A prisoner is only entitled to relief on a failure to protect claim if he can
show that he was “incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm” and
that the defendant prison official acted with “deliberate indifference.” Id. at 400–01 (internal
quotations omitted). To act with deliberate indifference, a prison official must both know of and
disregard “an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; [he] 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, 114 S.Ct. at 1979.
Autin only alleges personal involvement in the failure to protect by two defendants, Mincil
and King. Although he asserts that numerous stabbings happened on the unit and that prison staff
in general did not conduct adequate shakedowns for weapons, he only claims that King did not
adequately patrol the unit before he was attacked and that Mincil attempted to cover up the incident
by writing him up for fighting and ignoring the stabbings. He does not show that either defendant
was aware of any particular threat to him, much less that they acted in a way that showed their
disregard of that threat and ultimately allowed the attack to happen. 1 Accordingly, Autin fails to
state a claim under § 1983 against either Mincil or King. He should amend his complaint to show
that he is entitled to relief or dismiss his claims against them.

1

To the extent Autin might intend to raise a claim of denial of access to the courts based on Mincil’s alleged coverup, he should be aware that he is required to allege sufficient facts to show that the defendant’s actions prejudiced his
position as a litigant. E.g., Gonzalez v. Taylor, 695 Fed. App’x 731 (5th Cir. 2017) (citing Samford v. Dretke, 562
F.3d 674, 678 (5th Cir. 2003)).

-5-

2. Supervisory liability
It is clear that Cooley, Allemond, and Calabrese are named in a supervisory capacity.
Supervisory officials may not be held liable under § 1983 under the doctrine of respondeat
superior. See Mouille v. City of Live Oak, 977 F.2d 924 (5th Cir. 1992). To be liable under § 1983,
a supervisory official must be personally involved in the act causing the alleged constitutional
deprivation, have failed to train or supervise the officials directly involved in circumstances
amounting to deliberate indifference to the plaintiff’s rights, or must have implemented a policy
so deficient that the policy itself acts as a deprivation of constitutional rights. Brown v. Bolin,
500 Fed. App’x 309, 314 (5th Cir. 2012); see also Cozzo v. Tangipahoa Parish Council—President
Gov’t, 279 F.3d 273, 289 (5th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, Autin should amend his complaint to show
that these defendants are liable under one of the above theories, or dismiss his claims against them.
3. Declaratory relief
Finally, Autin seeks declaratory relief against the defendants in this action. It is well settled,
however, that such claims become moot upon transfer from the offending institution. See Herman
v. Holiday, 238 F.3d 660, 665 (5th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, Autin should dismiss this request.
III.
CONCLUSION
Autin’s pro se complaint is deficient as described above. Before this court can determine
the proper disposition of his action, he should be given the opportunity to remedy the deficiencies
or dismiss those claims that he cannot remedy. Bazrowx v. Scott, 136 F.3d 1053, 1054 (5th Cir.
1998).
Accordingly,
THE CLERK IS DIRECTED to mail a copy of this order to Autin at his last address on
file.
-6-

IT IS ORDERED that Autin amend his complaint within thirty (30) days of the filing of
this order to cure the deficiencies as outlined above, and dismiss the claims he is unable to cure
through amendment.
Failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of the claims above as frivolous
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 or dismissal of the action under Rule 41(b) or 16(f) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. See Link v. Wabash R. Co., 82 S. Ct. 1386 (1962).
Autin is further required to notify the court of any change in his address under LR 41.3.
Failure to do so will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Chambers this 28th day of December, 2017.

-7-