Tellis v. Leblanc

1

ANTHONY TELLIS, ET AL. v. JAMES M. LEBLANC, ET AL.

Civil Action No. 18-541

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Shreveport Division

July 18, 2024

HORNSBY MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

OPINION

ELIZABETH ERNY FOOTE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

Table of Contents

I. Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1

II. Procedural Background ................................................................................... 2

III. Burden of Proof ................................................................................................. 6

IV. Background Facts ............................................................................................. 7

A. Important Terms ......................................................................................... 7

B. DWCC Overview ......................................................................................... 9

i. N-1 ...................................................................................................... 9

ii. N-2A, N-2B, N-3, and N-4 ............................................................... 10

iii. N-2C ................................................................................................. 11

iv. N-2D ................................................................................................. 12

C. Corrections Officials ................................................................................. 13

D. Expert Witnesses ....................................................................................... 25

i. Dan Pacholke .................................................................................... 25

ii. Dr. Craig Haney ............................................................................... 26

iii. Dr. Kathryn Burns ............................................................................ 28

iv. Dr. John Thompson .......................................................................... 29

v. James Upchurch ............................................................................... 32

V. Eighth Amendment Claims ........................................................................... 34

A. Eighth Amendment Standard .................................................................. 34

B. Conditions of Confinement ....................................................................... 37

i. Substantial Risk of Serious Harm .......................................................... 37

1. Psychological Harms of Solitary Confinement .......................... 39

2. Conditions on the South Compound ........................................... 41

3. Manifestation of Harm at DWCC ............................................... 65

ii. Deliberate Indifference .......................................................................... 66

iii. Conclusion as to Conditions of Confinement ....................................... 68

C. Delivery of Mental Health Services ......................................................... 69

i. Substantial Risk of Harm ................................................................. 70

1. Screening and Evaluation ........................................................... 71

2. Mental Health Treatment ............................................................ 87

3. Staffing of the Mental Health Department ............................... 105

4. Administration of Psychotropic Medication ............................. 110

5. Lack of Accurate and Adequate Records .................................. 116

6. Suicide Prevention Program .................................................... 117

7. Manifestations of Harm ............................................................ 135

ii. Deliberate Indifference ................................................................... 144

1. Failure to Comply with Policy .................................................. 145

2. Wanton Disregard for Inmate Health and Safety ..................... 147

iii. Conclusion as to the Delivery of Mental Health Services ............. 151

D. Conclusion as to the Eighth Amendment Claims ................................. 152

VI. ADA and RA Claims ..................................................................................... 152

A. ADA and RA Standard ........................................................................... 153

B. Failure to Accommodate ......................................................................... 155

i. Affirmative Modifications ............................................................. 156

ii. Discipline ....................................................................................... 159

C. Methods of Administration .................................................................... 164

i. Under-inclusive Definition of Serious Mental Illness ................... 166

ii. Inadequate Process for Requesting Reasonable Accommodations…………………………………………………167

D. Conclusion as to ADA and RA Claims .................................................. 169

VII. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 169

I. Introduction

Inmates at David Wade Correctional Center (“DWCC”) filed this class action suit for injunctive and declaratory relief, challenging the conditions of confinement and delivery of mental health services on extended lockdown.^[1] Defendants are correctional officials at DWCC and the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections (“DOC”). Plaintiffs allege that the policies and practices in place at DWCC violate the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution,^[2] Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”),^[3] and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“RA”).^[4]

The Court bifurcated the trial of this matter into a liability phase and a remedy phase. The Court issued an opinion on the liability phase, holding that: 1) Defendants violated the Eighth Amendment by housing inmates-including those with a diagnosed mental illnessin inhumane conditions while on extended lockdown and by failing to provide those inmates adequate mental health care; and 2) Defendants have violated the ADA and RA by failing to make reasonable accommodations for inmates with mental disabilities and by employing unlawful methods of administration.

This opinion addresses the remedy phase of the litigation. The Court's task in this phase was to determine whether the violations identified in the liability phase were still occurring and would continue to occur into the future, and what remedies would eliminate these violations to the extent practicable.

For the reasons below and considering the credible testimony and evidence at trial, the pre- and post-trial briefs, and the stipulations of the parties, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have satisfied their burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Eighth Amendment, ADA, and RA violations for which they seek protection have continued since the liability phase of trial and will continue into the future.

II. Procedural Background^[5]

As a reminder, Plaintiffs are Disability Rights Louisiana (“Disability Rights”) (formerly known as Advocacy Center of Louisiana) and a group of inmate representatives who were housed on extended lockdown at DWCC at the time of the lawsuit's filing- Bruce Charles, Carlton Turner, Larry Jones, and Ronald Brooks-(collectively, “Plaintiffs”). See Record Document 316. Defendants are Secretary James LeBlanc (“Secretary LeBlanc”), Warden Jerry Goodwin (“Warden Goodwin”), Dr. Gregory Seal (“Dr. Seal”), Deputy Warden Deborah Dauzat (“Deputy Warden Dauzat”), Steve Hayden (“Hayden”), Aerial Robinson (“Robinson”), Johnie Adkins (“Adkins”),^[6] Vincent Coleman (“Coleman”), all in their official capacities; and the DOC.

Previously, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Record Document 462. In doing so, it certified a class of all prisoners who are or will be subjected to extended lockdown at DWCC that will pursue the Eighth Amendment claims (the “Class”) and a subclass consisting of all individuals on extended lockdown at DWCC who have or are perceived as having a qualifying disability related to mental health-as defined by the ADA-that will pursue the ADA and RA claims (the “Subclass”). Id. The Class and the Subclass are represented by the Named Plaintiffs, though the Named Plaintiffs did not testify at either phase of trial.

As stated above, considering the nature and extent of Plaintiffs' claims, the Court bifurcated the matter into two separate phases: liability and remedy. The liability phase came before the Court during a seventeen-day bench trial beginning January 10, 2022. The Court views the liability phase as capturing a snapshot in time during which Eighth Amendment, ADA, and RA violations were found to have taken place up through March 15, 2020. The remedy phase came before the Court during a fourteen-day trial beginning January 17, 2023.^[7] During the remedy phase of trial, the Court heard from twenty-six witnesses-including corrections officials, expert witnesses, and inmates-who testified regarding the conditions of confinement on extended lockdown at DWCC between March 15, 2020 (the cut-off date for prison conditions at the liability phase of trial), and August 30, 2022, and regarding the remedies required to cure those conditions. After trial, the Court permitted the parties to submit post-trial briefs after which the Court took the matter under advisement.

In its liability phase ruling, the Court found not just sporadic instances where the constitutional rights of a particular...