Ford v. Wood

District Court, W.D. Louisiana·Decided November 12, 2024·No. 1:23-cv-01358·Unknown

Opinion

b

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

DERRICK FORD, CIVIL DOCKET NO. 1:23-CV-01358 Plaintiff

VERSUS DIST RICT JUDGE DOUGHTY

MARK WOOD, ET AL., Defendants MAGISTRATE JUDGE PEREZ-MONTES

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is Defendant Dr. Clois Darien Slaughter’s second Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 36. Because reviewing, revising, and drafting policies, as well as training and supervising medical staff, fall within the scope of Dr. Slaughter’s duties as the Medical Director for the Rapides Parish Correctional Center, and because Ford has stated viable § 1983 claims against Dr. Slaughter, the second Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 36) should be DENIED. I. Background Plaintiff Derrick Ford (“Ford”) filed a Complaint pursuant to: 42 USC § 1983; the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2131, 12132; the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794; and supplemental state law claims. ECF Nos. 1, 8, 25. The named Defendants are Rapides Parish Sheriff Mark Wood (“Wood”) (in his official capacity), his unnamed excess insurance carrier,1 and several of his

1 For any amounts awarded beyond the amount of coverage provided by the Louisiana Sheriff’s Association self-insurance fund. employees: Rapides Parish Correctional Center (“RPCC”) Chief of Corrections Mike Slocum (“Slocum”) (in his individual capacity); RPCC Major Doug Hollingsworth (“Hollingsworth”) (in his individual capacity); RPCC Commander Mark Saucier (“Saucier”) (in his individual capacity); RPCC Security Investigator Lieutenant Josh

Daniels (“Daniels”) (in his individual capacity); RPSO Lieutenant Mark Thomas (“Thomas”) (in his individual capacity); RPSO Sergeant Brent Anderson (“Anderson”) (in his individual capacity); RPSO Deputy Tyler Bennett (“Bennett”) (in his individual capacity); and RPSO Deputy Danny Prenell (“Prenell”) (in his individual capacity) (collectively the “RPSO Defendants”). Ford also names as Defendants; Nortec, L.L.C., a private medical company employed to provide medical care to detainees and

inmates at the RPCC; Nortec’s unnamed insurer; and Dr. Lois Darien Slaughter (“Dr. Slaughter”) (in his official capacity as director of medical services at RPCC). ECF No. 12. Ford seeks a jury trial, declaratory relief, and monetary damages, including punitive damages. Ford contends that he is mentally ill. In October 2022, when he had a psychotic episode with hallucination, he was arrested and incarcerated in the Rapides Parish Correctional Center, where he was shackled for four days and denied medical

care until he was found unconscious and taken to the hospital. Ford spent 30 days in the hospital. He had gangrene and necrosis in his right leg, right arm and hand, and left foot that he claims was caused by the shackles. As a result, his right arm, right leg below the knee, and part of his left foot were amputated. ECF No. 12. Ford also 2 had acute kidney injury, severe hyperkalemia and renal failure, and acute respiratory failure. ECF No. 12. Ford contends RPSO deputies beat him, shackled his wrists and ankles, and left him continuously shackled for four days without periodic monitoring. ECF No.

12 . Ford did not receive a medical screening upon his arrival at RPCC, nor did he receive mental or physical medical care during his four day incarceration there. ECF No. 12. Ford further contends another inmate poured lighter fluid on him and set him on fire, and that he was not provided medical care for his burns.2 ECF No. 12. Due to his mental impairment, Ford was unable to draft and submit a grievance. ECF No. 12.

Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his claim against Nortec, L.L.C upon learning it had been replaced by Dr. Slaughter as the RPCC healthcare provider. ECF Nos. 4, 5. Defendants Woods, Slocum, Hollingsworth, Saucier, and Daniels (the “RPSO Defendants”) then filed a Motion to Dismiss Ford’s repetitive official capacity claim and claims for punitive damages. ECF No. 6. In response, Ford filed a First Amended Complaint to specify that his claims against Sheriff Wood are official capacity claims, and his claims against all other RPSO Defendants are individual capacity claims. He

also identified previously anonymous RPSO Defendants. ECF Nos. 8, 24. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 6) was denied as moot. ECF No. 35.

2 So far, there is no evidence in the record before the Court that Ford was burned. However, there is some evidence that he shouted about a fire when he was believed to be hallucinating. 3 Defendant Dr. Slaughter filed a first Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, arguing: (1) the official capacity claims against him are repetitive of the official capacity claims against Sheriff Wood; (2) the claim for punitive damages should be dismissed; and (3) Ford’s claims are all for medical malpractice claim and are

premature because he has not presented them to a medical review panel. ECF No. 10. In response, Ford filed a Second Amended Complaint that deleted all medical malpractice claims. ECF No. 25. Dr. Slaughter’s first Motion to Dismiss was denied. ECF No. 35. Dr. Slaughter then filed a second Motion to Dismiss that is before the Court. ECF No. 36. Dr. Slaughter contends that Ford’s remaining claims against him are

also medical malpractice claims. II. Law and Analysis A. Standards for Motion to Dismiss

A court may grant a motion to dismiss for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted” under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). “[A] complaint will survive dismissal for failure to state a claim if it contains ‘sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” , 822 F.3d 207, 210 (5th Cir. 2016) (quoting , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” , 556 U.S. at 678. The court must view all well-pleaded 4 facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. , 819 F.3d 170, 174 (5th Cir. 2016). Although a court must accept all well-pleaded facts as true, “courts ‘are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.’”

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). Generally, a court should not dismiss a lawsuit under Rule 12(b)(6) without giving plaintiff “at least one chance to amend.” , 306 Fed. Appx. 180, 182 (5th Cir. 2009). However, that general rule does not apply if an amendment would be futile. , 461 Fed. Appx. 367, 372 (5th Cir. 2011);

, 435 Fed. Appx. 346, 351–52 (5th Cir. 2011). In this context, futility means “that the amended complaint would fail to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.” 234 F.3d 863, 873 (5th Cir. 2000).3 B. Medical and prison records and statements attached to the Complaint. In the medical records attached to Ford’s Complaint, Ford shows he was initially taken to the emergency room, where he was given Benadryl and Geodon.

ECF No. 25-4 at 10; No. 42-2 at 11. Ford further shows that he was admitted to and

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Ford v. Wood, (W.D. La. 2024).

Ford v. Wood (Ford v. Wood) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hernandez v. Ikon Office Solutions, Inc.
306 F. App'x 180 (Fifth Circuit, 2009)
Cutrer v. McMillan
308 F. App'x 819 (Fifth Circuit, 2009)
Estelle v. Gamble
429 U.S. 97 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Papasan v. Allain
478 U.S. 265 (Supreme Court, 1986)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Omar Jaso v. Coca Cola Company
435 F. App'x 346 (Fifth Circuit, 2011)
James Clark v. Amoco Production Co., Etc.
794 F.2d 967 (Fifth Circuit, 1986)
Farmer v. Brennan
511 U.S. 825 (Supreme Court, 1994)
Yumilicious Franchise, L.L.C. v. Matthew Barrie, e
819 F.3d 170 (Fifth Circuit, 2016)
April Cadena v. El Paso County
946 F.3d 717 (Fifth Circuit, 2020)
Cleveland v. Gautreaux
198 F. Supp. 3d 717 (M.D. Louisiana, 2016)
Legate v. Livingston
822 F.3d 207 (Fifth Circuit, 2016)
Thomas v. James
809 F. Supp. 448 (W.D. Louisiana, 1993)