Fifth Circuit Remands Louisiana Detainee’s Medical Grievance Case
In 2022, Stephen James was being held in the St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana Jail while awaiting his trial. At his intake interview, he notified the medical staff of the prosthetic eye he had possessed for 55 years. On June 1, he visited the medical provider, Correct Health, where Doctor Samuel Gore noticed that his eye was running. The doctor ordered a lab workup, a topical antibiotic, and wound care twice a week.
Five days later, a nurse noticed that James’s face was swollen and ordered antibiotics for an eye infection. The next day, the deputy assigned to escort him to a wound care appointment did not do so. It was later determined, after James filed multiple grievances, that the deputy had filed an unsigned refusal on James’s behalf. In addition, multiple entries were logged showing James had visited medical, even though a sheriff’s review of video records had substantiated his grievances. He had not received the medical care he needed. He did not, in fact, receive any medical care in a month as his infection worsened.
He sued, claiming deliberate indifference under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 as it caused unnecessary pain, distress, extreme anxiety, and deteriorating health conditions. The magistrate twice denied his request for counsel, leaving him to form his own arguments and file his own motions. Ultimately, the magistrate granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
James appealed on two points: The first was that he had not been allowed a full and fair opportunity for discovery before the judge granted summary judgment; the second was that the judge failed to liberally construe the pro se complaint and draw all inferences in James’s favor while he also ignored issues of material fact.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit noted that the magistrate had, among other problems, failed to give James “a full and fair opportunity to discovery essential to [his] opposition for summary judgment,” which is a reversible error. Indigent prisoners in particular, the Court said, are “hampered in their access to the proof necessary to ward off summary judgment.”
On the second point, the magistrate had found that James had seen medical care and “received consistent medical treatment.” There were, however, several entries logged as receiving care even though he claimed that he did not. His claim was buoyed by the Assistant Warden’s review of the camera footage, which showed that the logs were erroneous. The logs showed when he received medication, not when he was taken to care. The magistrate also incorrectly stated that James had not complained about his eye until his June 20, 2022 grievance. “At a minimum,” the Court wrote, “these facts taken together demonstrate issues of material fact the Magistrate Judge overlooked in determining the facts that undergirded his recommendation, that is plain error.”
Rather than burdening James with proving what the doctor defendants know, they had the burden of proving the nonexistence of material disputes. The magistrate had shifted the burden to James.
James had less luck with the parish jail. Despite Deputy Hines’ turning in an unsigned refusal for James, which could lead one to reasonably infer that “Hines intended to mislead medical staff,” James did not point to any facts that demonstrated Hines’ subjective intent. Nor was there evidence that Hines knew “James faced a substantial risk of material harm.” See: James v. Smith, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 22384 (5th Cir. Aug. 29, 2025).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
James v. Smith
| Year | 2025 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 22384 (5th Cir. Aug. 29, 2025) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |