Louisiana Prisoner Sustains Claim Against Prison Doctor for Allowing Assignment to “Field Duty” Despite Known Ankle Injury
by Chuck Sharman
On January 7, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana refused to dismiss claims against a doctor with the Department of Public Safety & Corrections (DPSC), who allegedly ignored broken surgical screws in a prisoner’s ankle when approving a status change that put him back on the “farm line,” where the strenuous agricultural work exacerbated his injury.
Prisoner Bobby Stevenson’s 2003 ankle injury was treated with surgical screws that broke when he was put to work on the “farm line” at the Louisiana State Penitentiary (LSP). That injury pulled him off “field duty” from 2006 to 2019. When a status change returned him to “field duty,” he found himself in so much pain that he sought treatment. Eventually, in 2020, DPSC Dr. Randy Lavespere ordered X-rays which revealed the broken screws to Stevenson for the first time, though another prison doctor had noted them after a scan in 2004.
It was Lavespere who had approved a subordinate Nurse Practitioner’s decision to remove Stevenson from restricted duty in 2019. Also at Lavespere’s request, in-house orthopedist Dr. Ronald Sylvest examined Stevenson in 2021 and determined that surgery to repair the broken screws was not necessary. Instead, he recommended heel stretches and ordered a lace-up boot. But he did not change the prisoner’s duty status.
Stevenson continued to complain of ankle pain to Dr. Paul M. Tocé, after he took over for Lavespere as LSP Medical Director in 2021. Tocé sent him for another X-ray in March 2025 performed by an outside orthopedist, who did not recommend surgery. However, the prisoner was placed on restricted duty, which alleviated his pain symptoms.
Meanwhile, in 2022, Stevenson filed suit in the district court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, accusing Lavespere and Tocé of deliberate indifference to his serious medical need, in violation of his Eighth Amendment guarantee of freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, claiming qualified immunity (QI). But as PLN reported, the district court denied the motion and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed; taking the prisoner’s allegations at face value as it must at that point, the appellate Court agreed that he made a claim that Defendants knowingly put him on the “farm line” despite his injury, which was sufficient to overcome their claim of QI. [See: PLN, May 2025, p.10.]
Back at the district court, Defendants moved for summary judgment. In its January 2026 decision, the district court granted the motion as to Tocé but not Lavespere. Tocé’s response to the prisoner’s grievance—treating his pain and eventually sending him for an orthopedic consultation—did not rise to the level of deliberate indifference, the district court reasoned. However, the same was not true for Lavespere. The prisoner presented facts which, if proven, demonstrated that the doctor knew there were broken screws in Stevenson’s ankle and disregarded that fact when acquiescing to a status change that put him on strenuous duty.
The doctor pointed out that it was guards who actually put Stevenson on “field duty.” But the district court refused that attempt to dodge liability. “[A] reasonable jury could find that Lavespere’s revocation of Plaintiff’s restrictions is what allowed Plaintiff to be assigned to field work,” the district court wrote. Lavespere also “knew that prisoners [in Stevenson’s housing area] are commonly assigned to work the fields.” Putting these facts together “does not absolve Lavespere of potential liability,” the district court concluded, denying summary judgment.
The case remains open, and PLN will continue to update developments. The prisoner is represented by attorney Samuel T. Brandao, Director of the Tulane University Law School Civil Rights and Federal Practice Clinic in New Orleans, along with Assistant Law Prof. Jared Miller. See: Stevenson v. Johnson, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3207 (M.D. La.).Meanwhile, the “farm line” at LSP is the subject of a separate prisoner suit, which was recently granted class-action status, as reported elsewhere in this issue. [See: PLN, Mar. 2026, p.18.]
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
Stevenson v. Johnson
| Year | 2026 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3207 (M.D. La.) |
| Level | District Court |