UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
BRIAN LEE DEDEAUX CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NUMBER: 22-3834 RHONDA LEDET, ET AL. SECTION: “E” (5)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgement Based on Behalf of Warden Rhonda Ledet of the Terrebonne Parish Criminal Justice Complex and Lt. Shane Schwausch. (Rec. doc. 15). Plaintiff Brian Lee Dedeaux has filed no opposition to the motion. Having 1 reviewed Defendants’ motion, the Court rules as follows. I. Factual Background This lawsuit arises out of a claim filed on October 11, 2022 by Dedeaux, who was – at the time that he filed his complaint – an inmate in the Terrebonne Parish Criminal Justice Complex (“TPCJC”). Dedeaux claims that, during his incarceration at the TPCJC, he attempted on numerous occasions to receive a proper diet because he has few teeth and can only eat soft foods. (Rec. docs. 1 at 4-5, 22 at 2). The medical staff at TPCJC had filled out a ”Special Diet Order Form,” in which they recommended a soft diet due to Dedeaux’s lack of teeth. (Rec. doc. 15-6). Dedeaux further complains in both his original complaint and amended complaint filed on May 5, 2023, that his grievances that addressed this problem were not properly answered and that some days he did not even receive proper food compliant with his special diet. (Rec. doc. 22 at 1, 4).
1 Dedeaux maintains that his grievances were often considered – and even marked – duplicates and were not answered to his satisfaction. (Rec. docs. 1 at 4-5, 22 at 4). He further alleges that Defendants “were made aware of the deprivations and refused to take
appropriate actions.” (Rec. doc. 22 at 1). On October 11, 2022, Dedeaux filed this complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Warden Rhonda Ledet and Lt. Shane Schwausch, TPCJC’s main grievance officer, failed to provide him with a proper diet and failed to properly and timely respond to his grievance forms. II. Summary Judgment Standard
Summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as toC ealnotye mx Caoterrpi.a vl .f aCcatt raentdt that the moving party is entitled to a judgment
as a matter of law.” , 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). “Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element eIsds.e ntial to that party's case, and on which the party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” A party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of demonstrating the basis for summary judgment and identifying those portions of the record, discovery, Iadn.d any affidavits supporting the conclusion that there is
no genuine issue of material fact. at 323. If the moving party meets that burden, then the nonmoving party must use evidencIed c.ognizable under Rule 56 to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. at 324. A genuine issue oSfe em Aantedreiraslo fna cvt. eLxiibsetrst iyf aL orbebays,o Innacb.le jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id. , 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The substantive law identifies which facts are material. Material facts are not genuinely
disputed when a rational trier ofS feaec Mt caotusuldsh nitoat Efilnedc. fIonrd tuhse. Cnoo. nvm. Zoevniinthg Rpaadrtiyo uCporopn. a review of the record takenE qausa al wEmhopl'et . O pportunity Comm'n v. Simbaki, Ltd. , 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); , 767 F.3d 475, 481 (5th Cir. 2014). “[U]nsubstantiated assertions,” “conclusory allegations,” andS meee Arenldye crsoolonrable factual bases areH ionpspuefrfi cvi.e Fnrta tnok defeat a motion for summary judgment. , 477 U.S. at 249-50; , 16 F.3d 92, 97 (5th Cir. 1994). In ruling on aS eseu Dmemltaar &y jPuidneg mLeanntd mCoot. iov.n ,N aa ctioounrwt imdea yA ngoritb ruessionlevses cIrnesd. iCboi.lity issues or weigh evidence. , 530 F.3d 395, 398-99 (5th Cir. 2008).
Further, a court must assess the evidence, review the facts, and draw any appropriate inferences bSeaes eTdo loann t vh. eC eovttiodnence in the light most favoraDbalen tieol st hve. Cpiatyr toyf oAprplinogsitnogn summary judgment. , 572 U.S. 650, 656 (2014); , 246 F.3d 500, 502 (5th Cir. 2001). Yet a court only draws reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmovant “when there is an actLuiatlt lceo vn. tLrioqvueirds Ay,i rt hCaotr pis., when both parties have submitted evidencLeu ojafn c ovn. Ntraatd'li cWtoilrdyl iffaec Ftse.d” ' n , 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (citing , 497 U.S. 871, 888 (1990)).
After the movant demonstrates the absence of a genuine dispute, the nonmovant must articulate specific facts and pointS teoe Lsuynpcpho rPtrinopgs, .,c Ionmc.p ve. tPeontto emvaidc eInncse. Ctoh. aotf mIlla.y be presented in a form admissible at trial. , 140 F.3d 622, 625 (5th Cir. 1998); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A) & (c)(M2)a.t s Suushchit afacts must create When the nonmovant will bear the burden of proof at trial on the dispositive issue, the moving party may simply point to insufficient admissible evidence to establish an essenStieael eCleelmoteenxt of the nonmovant's claim in order to satisfy its summary judgment burden.
, 477 U.S. at 322-25; Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(B). Unless there is a genuine issue for trial that couldSe seu Lpitptolert a judgment in favor of the nonmovant, summary judgment must be granted. , 37 F.3d at 1075-76. III. Analysis
Section 1983 creates a damage remedy for a violation of a personV’isc toferdiae rWal. cvo. Lnastriptuentitoenral or statutory rights by a person acting under the color of state law. , 369 F.3d 475, 482 (5th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). Its purpose is to “deter state actors from using their badge of authority to deprive inWdivyaidtut va.l sC ofelederally guaranteed rights andA pnr ouvniddeer lryeilniegf cforonmsti vtuicttioimnas li fo trh set adteutteorrrye nvcioel afatiilosn.” i s a predicate ,t 5o0 l4ia Ub.iSli.t 1y58, 161 (1992). “ Har”r iunngdtoenr Sv.e Hctaiorrni s1983 because the statute merely provides a remedy for such a violation.
, 118 F.3d 359, 365 (5th Cir, 1997) (emphasis added) (citation omitted). Thus, a plaintiff muFslta igdge nBtriofys .b, Iontch, tvh. eB croonokstsitutional violation and the violator acting under color of state law.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
BRIAN LEE DEDEAUX CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NUMBER: 22-3834 RHONDA LEDET, ET AL. SECTION: “E” (5)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgement Based on Behalf of Warden Rhonda Ledet of the Terrebonne Parish Criminal Justice Complex and Lt. Shane Schwausch. (Rec. doc. 15). Plaintiff Brian Lee Dedeaux has filed no opposition to the motion. Having 1 reviewed Defendants’ motion, the Court rules as follows. I. Factual Background This lawsuit arises out of a claim filed on October 11, 2022 by Dedeaux, who was – at the time that he filed his complaint – an inmate in the Terrebonne Parish Criminal Justice Complex (“TPCJC”). Dedeaux claims that, during his incarceration at the TPCJC, he attempted on numerous occasions to receive a proper diet because he has few teeth and can only eat soft foods. (Rec. docs. 1 at 4-5, 22 at 2). The medical staff at TPCJC had filled out a ”Special Diet Order Form,” in which they recommended a soft diet due to Dedeaux’s lack of teeth. (Rec. doc. 15-6). Dedeaux further complains in both his original complaint and amended complaint filed on May 5, 2023, that his grievances that addressed this problem were not properly answered and that some days he did not even receive proper food compliant with his special diet. (Rec. doc. 22 at 1, 4).
1 Dedeaux maintains that his grievances were often considered – and even marked – duplicates and were not answered to his satisfaction. (Rec. docs. 1 at 4-5, 22 at 4). He further alleges that Defendants “were made aware of the deprivations and refused to take
appropriate actions.” (Rec. doc. 22 at 1). On October 11, 2022, Dedeaux filed this complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Warden Rhonda Ledet and Lt. Shane Schwausch, TPCJC’s main grievance officer, failed to provide him with a proper diet and failed to properly and timely respond to his grievance forms. II. Summary Judgment Standard
Summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as toC ealnotye mx Caoterrpi.a vl .f aCcatt raentdt that the moving party is entitled to a judgment
as a matter of law.” , 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). “Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element eIsds.e ntial to that party's case, and on which the party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” A party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of demonstrating the basis for summary judgment and identifying those portions of the record, discovery, Iadn.d any affidavits supporting the conclusion that there is
no genuine issue of material fact. at 323. If the moving party meets that burden, then the nonmoving party must use evidencIed c.ognizable under Rule 56 to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. at 324. A genuine issue oSfe em Aantedreiraslo fna cvt. eLxiibsetrst iyf aL orbebays,o Innacb.le jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id. , 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The substantive law identifies which facts are material. Material facts are not genuinely
disputed when a rational trier ofS feaec Mt caotusuldsh nitoat Efilnedc. fIonrd tuhse. Cnoo. nvm. Zoevniinthg Rpaadrtiyo uCporopn. a review of the record takenE qausa al wEmhopl'et . O pportunity Comm'n v. Simbaki, Ltd. , 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); , 767 F.3d 475, 481 (5th Cir. 2014). “[U]nsubstantiated assertions,” “conclusory allegations,” andS meee Arenldye crsoolonrable factual bases areH ionpspuefrfi cvi.e Fnrta tnok defeat a motion for summary judgment. , 477 U.S. at 249-50; , 16 F.3d 92, 97 (5th Cir. 1994). In ruling on aS eseu Dmemltaar &y jPuidneg mLeanntd mCoot. iov.n ,N aa ctioounrwt imdea yA ngoritb ruessionlevses cIrnesd. iCboi.lity issues or weigh evidence. , 530 F.3d 395, 398-99 (5th Cir. 2008).
Further, a court must assess the evidence, review the facts, and draw any appropriate inferences bSeaes eTdo loann t vh. eC eovttiodnence in the light most favoraDbalen tieol st hve. Cpiatyr toyf oAprplinogsitnogn summary judgment. , 572 U.S. 650, 656 (2014); , 246 F.3d 500, 502 (5th Cir. 2001). Yet a court only draws reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmovant “when there is an actLuiatlt lceo vn. tLrioqvueirds Ay,i rt hCaotr pis., when both parties have submitted evidencLeu ojafn c ovn. Ntraatd'li cWtoilrdyl iffaec Ftse.d” ' n , 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (citing , 497 U.S. 871, 888 (1990)).
After the movant demonstrates the absence of a genuine dispute, the nonmovant must articulate specific facts and pointS teoe Lsuynpcpho rPtrinopgs, .,c Ionmc.p ve. tPeontto emvaidc eInncse. Ctoh. aotf mIlla.y be presented in a form admissible at trial. , 140 F.3d 622, 625 (5th Cir. 1998); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A) & (c)(M2)a.t s Suushchit afacts must create When the nonmovant will bear the burden of proof at trial on the dispositive issue, the moving party may simply point to insufficient admissible evidence to establish an essenStieael eCleelmoteenxt of the nonmovant's claim in order to satisfy its summary judgment burden.
, 477 U.S. at 322-25; Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(B). Unless there is a genuine issue for trial that couldSe seu Lpitptolert a judgment in favor of the nonmovant, summary judgment must be granted. , 37 F.3d at 1075-76. III. Analysis
Section 1983 creates a damage remedy for a violation of a personV’isc toferdiae rWal. cvo. Lnastriptuentitoenral or statutory rights by a person acting under the color of state law. , 369 F.3d 475, 482 (5th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). Its purpose is to “deter state actors from using their badge of authority to deprive inWdivyaidtut va.l sC ofelederally guaranteed rights andA pnr ouvniddeer lryeilniegf cforonmsti vtuicttioimnas li fo trh set adteutteorrrye nvcioel afatiilosn.” i s a predicate ,t 5o0 l4ia Ub.iSli.t 1y58, 161 (1992). “ Har”r iunngdtoenr Sv.e Hctaiorrni s1983 because the statute merely provides a remedy for such a violation.
, 118 F.3d 359, 365 (5th Cir, 1997) (emphasis added) (citation omitted). Thus, a plaintiff muFslta igdge nBtriofys .b, Iontch, tvh. eB croonokstsitutional violation and the violator acting under color of state law. , 436 U.S. 149, 156 (1978). A person is “acting under color of state law” if they have exercised power “possessed by virtue of state law andW mesatd ve. pAotksisnibsle only because the wrongdoer is U‘cnloittehde dSt watietsh vt.h Cel aasustihcority of state law.’” Thibod, e4a8u7x Uv.. SB.o 4r2de, l4o9n (1988) (quoting , 313 U.S. 299, 326 (1941)); , 740 F.2cd 329, 333 (5th Cir. 1984). In this case, Dedeaux invokes Section 1983 to seek remedies for various constitutional violations at the hands of Defendants Ledet and Schwausch. Specifically, Dedeaux alleges that Defendants failed to respond to his grievances that informed them that
he did not receive his special diet and that he sometimes even missed his meal. Dedeaux alleges that Schwausch and other officers either ignored his grievances or did not respond to them in a timely manner. He maintains that the grievance officers – mainly Schwausch – consistently denied or rejected his numerous complaints as being duplicate grievance matters. Having reviewed the grievance forms themselves, this Court finds that these claims lack the evidentiary merit necessary to reach a trial.
The Fifth CircuiMt hinaisx hv.e Sldto tkheart an inmate has no Constitutional right to anO aredlelaqnuaa tve. Kgryileevance procedure. , 289 F. App’x 15, 17 (5th Cir. 2008) (citing , 65 F.3d 29 (5th Cir. 1a9ty9p5ic))a.l “[A] prisoner has a liberty interest only in ‘freedom[s] from restraint . . . impos[ing] and Gseigigneifri cva.n Jto hwaerrdsship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison lifeO.’r”e l lana v. Kyle , 404 F.3d 371, 374 (5th Cir. 2005) (emphasis in original) (quoting , 65 F.3d 29, 31-32 (5th Cir. 1995)). The Constitution also does not create a federally-protected liberty inIdte.rest for prisoners to have their grievances investigated or resolved to their satisfaction. Any alleged due process
vIdio. lation arising from “an alleged failure to investigate grievances is indisputably meritless.” In light of Fifth Circuit precedent, this Court finds that Dedeaux’s allegations regarding Defendants’ alleged violation of his Constitutional rights are frivolous because he has no 2 Constitutional right to a grievance procedure. 2 Even if Dedeaux possessed such a right, Defendants have produced sworn affidavits and additional grievance forms that prove that they filed, read, and resolved Dedeaux’s grievances in a proper and timely manner. (Rec. docs. 15-3, 15-4, 15-5, 15-6). Both
Defendants Ledet and Schwausch issued affidavits that indicate Dedeaux’s special diet was approved by the prison’s medical staff, and that the corrections officials did everything that they could to ensure Plaintiff received his soft food diet. (Rec. docs. 15-3, 15-4). Defendant Ledet states that on occasion, it is possible that a meal for an inmate could be missed. (Rec. doc. 15-4). She further explains that this is not a regular occurrence but when serving on average one thousand six hundred and fifty meals a day, a mistake may occasionally occur. (Rec. doc. 15-4).
Defendant Ledet also acknowledges in her affidavit that the prison’s medical staff approved Plaintiff for a soft food diet, and that this medical staff made all of the potential decisions regarding an inmate’s diet. (Rec. docs. 15-4, 15-6). The medical staff forwarded this confirmation to the kitchen staff, who are responsible for preparing the inmate’s food. (Rec. doc. 15-6). Food Services Manager Keisha Neville of Correctional Food Services also attests that after she received the order for Dedeaux’s special diet, she forwarded that request to Correctional Food Services, ensuring that Dedeaux received his special diet for the
remainder of his time at the prison until transfer. (Rec. doc. 15-7). Defendants also aver that Schwausch properly answered all of Plaintiff’s grievance requests in a timely manner. Dedeaux himself attached his grievance forms to his original
the Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government and not the TPCJC – are responsible for resolving whether an complaint, all of which demonstrate that Ledet and Schwausch timely responded to 3 Dedeaux’s complaints. (Rec. doc. 1-1). Having failed to oppose Defendants’ motion, Dedeaux did not rebut Defendants’ competent summary judgment evidence. Because Defendants carried their burden to demonstrate that no genuine issue of material fact exists, the burden shifted to Dedeaux to demonstrate that one does. He has not done so, and his 4 claims therefore fail. IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgement Based on Behalf of Warden Rhonda Ledet of tGhReA TNeTrrEeDbonne Parish Criminal Justice Complex and Lt. Shane Schwausch (rec. doc. 15) is , and PlaiDnItSifMf BISrSiaEnD LWeeIT DHe dPeRaEuJxU’sD cIClaEims against Defendants Rhonda Ledet and Lt. Schwausch are 20th June . New Orleans, Louisiana, this _________ day of __________________________, 2023.
_____________________________________________ MICHAEL B. NORTH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
3 Only some of the grievance forms relate specifically to Dedeaux’s complaints related to his special diet. (Rec. 4d oc. 1-1 at 7-13, 15, 17-18, 20-26, 29). Needless to say, Dedeaux is a frequent filer of grievance forms, which were filed on an almost daily basis.