Parker v. Hooper

95 F.4th 231

Opinion

Case: 23-30825 Document: 156 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/06/2024

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

____________ FILED March 6, 2024

No. 23-30825

Lyle W. Cayce

____________

Clerk

Kentrell Parker, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; Farrell Sampier, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; Reginald George; John Tonubbee, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; Otto Barrera, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; Clyde Carter, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; Edward Giovanni, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; Ricky D. Davis, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; Lionel Tolbert, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; Rufus White, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; Shannon Hurd; Alton Adams; Ian Cazenave; Edward Washington; Alton Batiste,

Plaintiffs—Appellees,

versus

Tim Hooper, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, in his official capacity; Ashli Oliveaux, Assistant Warden for Health Services, in her official capacity; James M. LeBlanc, Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, in his official capacity; Randy Lavespere, Medical Doctor; Stacye Falgout; Paul Toce; Bill Hawkins; Cynthia Park, ACNP; The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections,

Defendants—Appellants.

Case: 23-30825 Document: 156 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/06/2024

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:15-CV-318

______________________________

ORDER

Before Jones, Haynes, and Douglas, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:

It is ORDERED that the Remedial Order entered by the district court on November 6, 2023, is STAYED pending further order of this court. Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 426 (2009). In deciding to stay the Remedial Order, the panel expresses no opinion on the underlying merits of the case.