Case: 22-30388 Document: 00516783602 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/12/2023
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Fifth Circuit
`____________
`
`No. 22-30388
`____________
`
`Raymond Harold Kimble, III,
`
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`Fifth Circuit
`
`FILED
`June 12, 2023
`
`Lyle W. Cayce
`Clerk
`
`Plaintiff—Appellant,
`
`
`
`versus
`
`
`Correcthealth Jefferson, L.L.C.,
`
`
`Defendant—Appellee.
`______________________________
`
`
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the Eastern District of Louisiana
`USDC No. 2:21-CV-409
`______________________________
`
`
`Before Dennis, Engelhardt, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
`
`Per Curiam:*
`
`Raymond Harold Kimble, III is a pretrial detainee at the Jefferson
`
`Parish Correctional Center (“JPCC”) in Gretna, Louisiana. Kimble claims
`
`CorrectHealth Jefferson, LLC (“CHJ”)—the medical care provider at
`
`JPCC—denied him adequate care. The district court granted CHJ’s Rule
`
`12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. We affirm.
`
`_____________________
`
`* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
`
`

`

`Case: 22-30388 Document: 00516783602 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/12/2023
`
`No. 22-30388
`
`Kimble
`
`alleges
`
`that CHJ
`
`responded
`
`inadequately
`
`and
`
`unconstitutionally to injuries he suffered in 2020 at JPCC. According to
`
`Kimble, he injured himself by lifting heavy boxes on March 11, by slipping
`
`and falling in the bathroom on December 17, and by slipping and falling after
`
`taking a shower on December 19. Although CHJ staff examined Kimble,
`
`ordered x-rays, and prescribed and administered medication, Kimble
`
`nevertheless claims they provided constitutionally deficient medical care—
`
`namely, by ignoring his requests for specific types of care such as
`
`appointments with certain medical professionals.
`
`Kimble filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various
`
`defendants, including CHJ. He alleges that CHJ has a policy or practice of
`
`wantonly disregarding detainees’ serious medical needs, which he says was
`
`the moving force behind the CHJ staff’s alleged indifference to his 2020
`
`injuries. The magistrate judge disagreed. She determined that the facts
`
`alleged in Kimble’s complaint did not rise to the level of deliberate
`
`indifference and thus could not support a constitutional violation.
`
`Accordingly, she recommended that CHJ’s motion to dismiss be granted and
`
`that Kimble’s claims against CHJ be dismissed with prejudice. The district
`
`court so ordered.
`
`Kimble timely appealed. Our jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1291. We review the district court’s motion-to-dismiss ruling de novo and
`
`apply the same standards. Dyer v. Houston, 964 F.3d 374 (5th Cir. 2020).
`
`Both parties agree that CHJ should be treated as a municipal or local
`
`governmental entity for purposes of § 1983. See Rosborough v. Mgmt. &
`
`Training Corp., 350 F.3d 459, 461 (5th Cir. 2003) (per curiam); Kennemer v.
`
`Parker Cnty., 2022 WL 2610239, at *1 n.1 (5th Cir. July 8, 2022) (per curiam)
`
`(“Even though LaSalle is a private corporation, it is subject to the same rules
`
`as municipalities because private prisons engage in a fundamentally
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 22-30388 Document: 00516783602 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/12/2023
`
`No. 22-30388
`
`governmental function.” (quotation omitted)). To state a claim against such
`
`a local entity, Kimble must plead facts that plausibly establish “that (1) an
`
`official policy (2) promulgated by [a relevant] policymaker (3) was the
`
`moving force behind the violation of [his] constitutional right[s].” Peterson v.
`
`City of Fort Worth, 588 F.3d 838, 847 (5th Cir. 2009).
`
`Even assuming Kimble’s complaint satisfies the first two prongs, it
`
`fails the third. Kimble asserts a Fourteenth Amendment deliberate-
`
`indifference claim. See Cadena v. El Paso Cnty., 946 F.3d 717, 727 (5th Cir.
`
`2020) (pretrial detainees’ deliberate-indifference claims are rooted in the
`
`Fourteenth Amendment, while those of convicted prisoners stem from the
`
`Eighth); Baughman v. Hickman, 935 F.3d 302, 306 (5th Cir. 2019) (subjecting
`
`Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment deliberate-indifference claims to the
`
`same analysis). To survive CHJ’s motion to dismiss, Kimble must plead facts
`
`demonstrating that CHJ staff were “aware of facts from which the inference
`
`could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exist[ed],” that they
`
`“actually drew the inference” and “disregarded that risk,” and that
`
`“substantial harm resulted.” Baldwin v. Dorsey, 964 F.3d 320, 326 (5th Cir.
`
`2020) (quotation omitted). Put differently, Kimble must plausibly allege that
`
`CHJ staff believed he was at substantial risk of serious harm and that they
`
`nonetheless “refused to treat him, ignored his complaints, intentionally
`
`treated him incorrectly, or engaged in any similar conduct that would clearly
`
`evince a wanton disregard for [his] serious medical needs.” Davis v. Lumpkin,
`
`35 F.4th 958, 963 (5th Cir. 2022) (quotation omitted).
`
`Kimble does not meet this “extremely high standard.” Domino v. Tex.
`
`Dep’t of Crim. Just., 239 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir. 2001). As Kimble himself
`
`acknowledges in his complaint, CHJ staff were attentive to his maladies and
`
`responsive to his mishaps. After Kimble injured himself carrying boxes on
`
`March 11, he was quickly evaluated and given “remedies to help resolve the
`
`pain and stiffness.” When the pain did not abate, he was later evaluated by a
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 22-30388 Document: 00516783602 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/12/2023
`
`No. 22-30388
`
`nurse practitioner (twice), diagnosed with “swollen nerves,” and provided
`
`“a pill twice a day to keep the nerve from swelling.” After Kimble slipped
`
`and fell on December 17, CHJ staff “brought [him] to the clinic by
`
`wheelchair,” where he was examined by the nurse practitioner, observed
`
`overnight, and ultimately shuttled to University Medical Center (“UMC”)
`
`for x-rays. Finally, after Kimble slipped and fell on December 19, a CHJ nurse
`
`“immediately” examined him for a concussion and “concluded that ice
`
`packs were needed [as well as] some form of pain relief.” This is a far cry
`
`from the “wanton” or “reckless” disregard that the Fourteenth Amendment
`
`protects against. Baughman, 935 F.3d at 307; see also Bejaran v. Cruz, 79 F.
`
`App’x 73, 74 (5th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (“Bejaran’s admission in his
`
`complaint that the prison medical staff took x-rays of his back and that Mrs.
`
`Osha gave him ‘generic,’ ‘mild medications’ refute his assertion of deliberate
`
`indifference to his medical needs.”).
`
`In response, Kimble claims that CHJ’s reliance on LPNs (licensed
`
`practical nurses) and CNAs (certified nursing assistants) delayed his ability
`
`to meet with more “educated” and “qualified” health care professionals. He
`
`also highlights one instance where CHJ staff forgot to bring him ice packs and
`
`anti-inflammatories, and another where CHJ allegedly pursued a different
`
`treatment plan than the one suggested at UMC. But if “[u]nsuccessful
`
`medical treatment,” “disagreement with medical judgments,” “acts of
`
`negligence,” and “medical malpractice [are] not enough to meet [the
`
`deliberate-indifference] standard,” then Kimble’s allegations likewise fail.
`
`Davis, 35 F.4th at 963 (quotation omitted); see also Easter v. Powell, 467 F.3d
`
`459, 463 (5th Cir. 2006) (“The mere delay of medical care can also constitute
`
`a[] [constitutional] violation but only if there has been deliberate indifference
`
`that results in substantial harm.” (emphasis added) (quotation omitted));
`
`Blank v. Bell, 634 F. App’x 445, 449 (5th Cir. 2016) (noting that prison
`
`physicians have “discretion whether to follow any medication prescriptions
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 22-30388 Document: 00516783602 Page: 5 Date Filed: 06/12/2023
`
`No. 22-30388
`
`in [an inmate’s/detainee’s] hospital-discharge instructions”); Stewart v.
`
`Murphy, 174 F.3d 530, 535 (5th Cir. 1999) (similar).
`
`Accordingly, Kimble
`
`fails
`
`to plausibly allege a Fourteenth
`
`Amendment deliberate-indifference violation. His § 1983 claims against CHJ
`
`cannot proceed without an underlying constitutional violation. Hicks-Fields
`
`v. Harris Cnty., 860 F.3d 803, 808 (5th Cir. 2017) (“As is well established,
`
`every Monell claim requires an underlying constitutional violation.”
`
`(quotation omitted)).
`
`AFFIRMED.
`
`5
`
`