Madison v. Wilkerson County Correctional Facility et al
Filing
45
Opinion and Order dismissing Defendants Longley, Jackson, Dunn and Anderson from this matter. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker on February 15, 2015. (ES)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WESTERN DIVISION
HENRY LAVELL MADISON
PLAINTIFF
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13cv223-DCB-MTP
UNKNOWN BITTS, et al.
DEFENDANTS
OPINION AND ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court following the Court’s findings at the Spears1 hearing in
this case. Plaintiff’s claims were clarified and amended2 at the Spears hearing held on February 12,
2015. After careful consideration of the Plaintiff’s claims and the applicable law, the Court finds that
(1) Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Archie Longley should be dismissed and (2) Plaintiff’s ore
tenus motion to dismiss Defendants Jessica Jackson, Evelyn Dunn, and Dr. Anderson should be
granted.
This case arises from medical care Plaintiff received at Wilkinson County Correctional
Facility (“WCCF”). In his Complaint [1], Plaintiff names Archie Longely as a Defendant. At the
hearing, Plaintiff stated that Longley is an administrator for the Mississippi Department of
Corrections and is in charge of the medical staff, and thus he is responsible for any wrongful acts
committed by the medical staff at WCCF.
There is no vicarious or respondeat superior liability of supervisors under section 1983.
Thompkins v. Belt, 828 F.2d 298, 303-4 (5th Cir. 1987). Instead, the plaintiff must show that (1) the
supervisor either failed to supervise the subordinate officials; (2) a causal link exists between the
1
Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985).
2
Flores v. Livingston, 405 Fed. App’x 931, 932 (5th Cir. 2010) (stating that allegations
made at a Spears hearing supercede claims alleged in the complaint).
failure to train and the violation of the plaintiff’s rights; and (3) the failure to supervise amounts to
deliberate indifference. Goodman v. Harris Cnty., 571 F.3d 388, 395 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting Smith
v. Brenoettsy, 158 F.3d 908, 911-12 (5th Cir. 1998)). In order to establish deliberate indifference
in a Section 1983 action for failure to supervise, a plaintiff must demonstrate a pattern of violations
and that the inadequacy of supervision is obvious and likely to result in a constitutional violation.
Supervisory liability can also exist if the supervisory official implements a policy so deficient that
the policy itself is a repudiation of constitutional rights. Thompkins, 828 F.2d at 304.
Plaintiff has not alleged that Archie Longley was personally involved in any of the decisions
regarding Plaintiff’s medical treatment, that there is any causal link between Longley’s failure to
train and any violation of Plaintiff’s rights, or that this failure amounted to deliberate indifference.
He has also failed to allege that Longley has implemented any policy that resulted in a deprivation
of Plaintiff’s rights. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against Longley, and he should
be dismissed as a Defendant to this action.
Also at the hearing, Plaintiff stated that he no longer wishes to pursue his claims against
Defendants Jessica Jackson, Evelyn Dunn, and Dr. Anderson. Plaintiff testified that the request for
dismissal was being made voluntarily and free from duress or coercion. No defendant opposed the
Plaintiff’s request. Therefore, the Court concludes that Defendants Jackson, Dunn and Anderson
should be dismissed.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED:
(1)
That Plaintiff’s claims against Archie Longley be dismissed with prejudice and that
Longley be dismissed as a Defendant to this action.
(2)
That Plaintiff’s ore tenus motion to dismiss Defendants Jessica Jackson, Evelyn
Dunn, and Dr. Anderson be granted and that they be dismissed as Defendants
without prejudice.
SO ORDERED this the 18th day of February, 2014.
s/ Michael T. Parker
United States Magistrate Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?