Pierre v. Craft et al

Filing 54

MEMORANDUM RULING re 45 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by John S Craft, Trina Williams, 52 Amended MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by John S Craft, Trina Williams. Signed by Judge James D Cain, Jr on 12/4/2020. (crt,Benoit, T)

Case 2:17-cv-01565-JDC-KK Document 54 Filed 12/04/20 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 785

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAKE CHARLES DIVISION

EVELYN MURRAY PIERRE

CASE NO. 2:17-CV-01565

VERSUS

JUDGE JAMES D. CAIN, JR.

JOHN S. CRAFT ET AL.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE KAY

MEMORANDUM RULING
Before the court is a Motion for Summary Judgment [doc. 45] filed by defendants
John S. Craft and Trina Williams and seeking dismissal of all of plaintiff’s claims against
them. Plaintiff opposes the motion. Doc. 49. Defendants have not filed a reply and their
time for doing so has passed. In response to the court’s order, the parties have also provided
amended briefs. Docs. 51, 52.
I.
BACKGROUND
This suit arises from the death of plaintiff’s son, Roy Edward Marshall, on January
17, 2017. At the time Marshall was an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department
of Public Safety and Corrections, serving a sentence imposed by a Louisiana state court,
and was housed at Vernon Correctional Facility (“VCF”) in Vernon Parish, Louisiana. See
doc. 51, att. 1. He was booked into VCF on September 8, 2016, at which time he completed
an intake medical screening. Doc. 52, att. 15. There he listed asthma, treated with an
inhaler, among his medical conditions. Id. During the remainder of his stay at VCF he was
transported to the emergency room on two occasions for treatment of his asthma. Doc. 52,
-1-

Case 2:17-cv-01565-JDC-KK Document 54 Filed 12/04/20 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 786

att. 16. His medications, including asthma medications, were filled by VCF personnel at a
local pharmacy. Doc. 52, atts. 17 & 18.
According to a fellow inmate, Marshall had been asking for a refill on his inhaler
for two weeks preceding his death. Doc. 49, att. 9. On the morning of January 17, 2017,
Marshall began experiencing difficulty breathing while playing a game of dominoes with
two other inmates and asked one of the inmates to summon a guard. See doc. 52, att. 3.
One of the inmates alerted Sergeant George Roman, who in turn reported to Medical
Officer Trina Williams that Marshall was “having trouble breathing and wanted to see
medical.” Doc. 52, att. 4. At Williams’s instruction Marshall was brought to medical, where
he told Williams that he was having an asthma attack and could not breathe. Id. He also
reported that he did not have his inhaler, and that he had run out of it the night before and
informed the night shift. Id.; doc. 52, att. 5, p. 12.
Officer Williams called the pharmacy to request a refill and was told that it would
be ready in about twenty minutes. Doc. 52, att. 4. She also sent Officer Lewis Anderson to
Marshall’s bunk to see if he could locate his inhaler, and began trying to assist Marshall
with a home remedy (steam). Doc. 52, att. 5, pp. 12–19. Anderson, however, only returned
with an empty inhaler. Id. at 19–21. Williams knew that several other inmates at VCF used
inhalers to treat asthma, but did not attempt to obtain one from any of them because of a
facility policy against sharing any type of medication, including inhalers – even in an
emergency situation. Id. at 33–35.
By this point Marshall was turning purple, so staff moved him to a stretcher in the
hall, began resuscitative efforts, and called for an ambulance at approximately 9:29 am.
-2-

Case 2:17-cv-01565-JDC-KK Document 54 Filed 12/04/20 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 787

Doc. 52, atts. 7–10. EMS arrived at approximately 9:42. Doc. 52, att. 10. EMS then took
over resuscitative efforts in the sally port of the facility, where Marshall coded. Id.; doc.
52, att. 5, p. 32; see also doc. 52, atts. 6–9. His body was covered and left at that location
until the assistant coroner arrived to pronounce him dead. Doc. 52, att. 5, p. 33. After
Marshall’s death, the coroner’s investigator discovered an inhaler with 122–124 doses
remaining in Marshall’s locker. Doc. 52, atts. 11 & 12; see doc. 52, att. 6.
Plaintiff filed suit against Williams, Anderson, Assistant Warden Ricky Stephens,
and Vernon Parish Sheriff John S. Craft. 1 Docs. 1, 34. There she alleged that Marshall’s
death was the result of violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and Louisiana
tort law. Williams and Craft now move for summary judgment
II.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
Under Rule 56(a), “[t]he court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows
that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.” The moving party is initially responsible for identifying
portions of pleadings and discovery that show the lack of a genuine issue of material fact.
Tubacex, Inc. v. M/V Risan, 45 F.3d 951, 954 (5th Cir. 1995). He may meet his burden by
pointing out “the absence of evidence supporting the nonmoving party’s case.” Malacara
v. Garber, 353 F.3d 393, 404 (5th Cir. 2003). The non-moving party is then required to go
beyond the pleadings and show that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). To this end he must submit

1

She also named as defendant “Guard X,” who has never been identified or served.

-3-

Case 2:17-cv-01565-JDC-KK Document 54 Filed 12/04/20 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 788

“significant probative evidence” in support of his claim. State Farm Life Ins. Co. v.
Gutterman, 896 F.2d 116, 118 (5th Cir. 1990). “If the evidence is merely colorable, or is
not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at
249 (citations omitted).
A court may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence in ruling on
a motion for summary judgment. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S.
133, 150 (2000). The court is also required to view all evidence in the light most favorable
to the non-moving party and draw all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor. Clift v.
Clift, 210 F.3d 268, 270 (5th Cir. 2000). Under this standard, a genuine issue of material
fact exists if a reasonable trier of fact could render a verdict for the nonmoving party.
Brumfield v. Hollins, 551 F.3d 322, 326 (5th Cir. 2008).
III.
LAW & APPLICATION
A. Eighth Amendment Claims
Because plaintiff was a convicted prisoner, his medical care claims arise under the
Eighth Amendment. Hare v. City of Corinth, Miss., 74 F.3d 633, 639 (5th Cir. 1994). The
Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment is violated when a
prison official acts with deliberate indifference to an inmate’s serious medical needs.
Easter v. Powell, 467 F.3d 459, 463 (5th Cir. 2006). Deliberate indifference is a high
standard requiring more than “[u]nsuccessful medical treatment, acts of negligence, or
medical malpractice[.]” Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 346 (5th Cir. 2006). Instead, a
prison official acts with deliberate indifference “only if he knows that inmates face a
-4-

Case 2:17-cv-01565-JDC-KK Document 54 Filed 12/04/20 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 789

substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable
measures to abate it.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994).
Williams and Craft maintain that plaintiff cannot meet the second prong of this test
because VCF personnel responded appropriately by calling for new medication and then
beginning resuscitative efforts and calling for emergency care upon Marshall’s sudden
collapse. They further submit an expert report contending that the cause of Marshall’s
sudden collapse and death was not any error by the jail, which had supplied him with his
prescribed medications (including an inhaler with sufficient doses remaining), but instead
his suspected smoking and regular usage of beta-blocking drugs, which inhibit the efficacy
of asthma medications. See doc. 52, att. 14.
The plaintiff, however, has submitted an affidavit from Marshall’s treating
physician, who states that Marshall was only on a low dose of beta-blockers. Doc. 51, att.
8. He further states that Marshall responded well to the medications prescribed for his
asthma, particularly when used for asthma attacks, and that the beta blockers did not appear
to interfere with the efficacy of these. Id. He notes that nebulizers and inhalers are still the
standard of care for emergency treatment of Marshall’s symptoms. Id. Based on Marshall’s
response to treatment during prior asthma attacks, he concludes that Marshall likely would
have survived the asthma attack that occurred on January 17, 2017, if treated promptly with
an inhaler or nebulizing treatment of albuterol. Id.
These conflicting opinions show a genuine issue of fact as to whether defendants
responded appropriately to Marshall’s asthma attack. Furthermore, there remains an issue
of fact as to when Marshall ran out of his inhaler and when he first alerted VCF staff. Based
-5-

Case 2:17-cv-01565-JDC-KK Document 54 Filed 12/04/20 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 790

on Marshall’s history of emergency care at the jail and his use of prescription medication
to treat his asthma, defendants had notice of the seriousness of his condition. The evidence
above shows that the jail had extra inhalers on hand but declined to treat Marshall
immediately with these because of a policy against sharing medication, even in emergency
situations. Whether this policy, or the failure to keep the inhaler located after Marshall’s
death in a place where it could be easily located in an emergency, or the failure to keep an
emergency supply of albuterol on hand amounts to deliberate indifference requires
resolution of the questions of fact above. Accordingly, summary judgment cannot be
granted on the constitutional claims.
B. Tort Claims
Under Louisiana law, a jailer has an obligation to provide adequate and reasonable
medical services for prisoners. E.g., Jacoby v. State, 434 So.2d 570, 573 (La. Ct. App. 1st
Cir. 1983). Additionally, an employer is vicariously liable for the negligent acts committed
by employees acting in the course and scope of their employment. Zeitoun v. City of New
Orleans, 81 So.3d 66, 75 (La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2011). Plaintiff brings a wrongful death
and survival action against all defendants, and maintains that Sheriff Craft is also liable for
the individual employees’ torts under a theory of vicarious liability.
Given the conflicting opinions above, the court cannot determine the extent to which
a standard of care was breached with Marshall’s treatment. The jury will have to decide
the appropriate weight for each opinion and then resolve the question of what treatment the
jail should have provided to Marshall on the morning of January 17, 2017, and whether

-6-

Case 2:17-cv-01565-JDC-KK Document 54 Filed 12/04/20 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 791

any breach of that standard caused his death. Accordingly, the court cannot grant summary
judgment on the tort claims against Craft or Williams.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Motion for Summary Judgment [docs. 45, 52] will
be DENIED.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Chambers on this 4th day of December, 2020.

________________________________________
JAMES D. CAIN, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-7-