Case: 23-30486 Document: 88-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/22/2024
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 23-30486
FILED
____________
August 22, 2024
Bobby Stevenson, Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Paul M. Tocé, in his individual capacity; Randy Lavespere, in his
individual capacity,
Defendants—Appellants.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 3:22-CV-472
______________________________
Before Clement, Graves, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.
James E. Graves, Circuit Judge:
Bobby Stevenson is a prisoner at the Louisiana State Penitentiary in
Angola, Louisiana. He alleges that for years he has been forced to labor in the
prison’s agricultural fields despite extreme pain in his ankle caused by two
broken surgical screws. Now, he sues two prison physicians who he claims
refused to fix the broken screws or relieve him from field labor. The
physicians moved to dismiss the suit, invoking the defense of qualified
immunity. The district court found Stevenson’s allegations sufficient to
overcome the defense. We AFFIRM.
Case: 23-30486 Document: 88-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/22/2024
No. 23-30486
I. BACKGROUND
a. Factual background
The following facts are contained in Stevenson’s operative complaint
or were explicitly incorporated into it from an earlier complaint. At the
motion to dismiss stage, we accept Stevenson’s allegations as true. Crane v.
City of Arlington, 50 F.4th 453, 461 (5th Cir. 2022).
Stevenson fractured his right ankle playing basketball in the prison
yard in 2003. He was treated outside the prison by an orthopedic surgeon,
who installed surgical screws in Stevenson’s ankle to keep the bones in place.
To keep the screws from breaking, Stevenson was permanently relieved of
field duty status, meaning he could not be required to perform manual labor
or even stand or walk for prolonged periods.
For some reason, Stevenson’s duty status was later revoked, and he
was required to return to work in the agricultural fields. The strain on his
ankle caused one of the screws to break, as revealed in a May 2006 x-ray. The
broken screw caused pain and swelling. Stevenson was again relieved of field
duty status, but he was not told about the broken screw.
In 2019, Stevenson’s out-of-field status was revoked again, this time
by defendant Dr. Randy Lavespere. In 2020, a second x-ray revealed another
broken screw in Stevenson’s ankle. Again, Stevenson was not told. But his
ankle continued to cause him “tremendous pain” and “daily pain and
torment” and affected his ability to walk normally, causing secondary
injuries. He complained continually and requested a change in duty status to
relieve him of work in the fields. But “[w]ithout knowledge of the broken
screws,” Stevenson alleges, he “did not know to ask for their surgical
removal or repair.”
2
Case: 23-30486 Document: 88-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/22/2024
No. 23-30486
In April 2021, Stevenson saw another prison physician for a rash on
his face. He also complained about his ankle, so the physician reviewed
Stevenson’s records and found the 2006 and 2020 x-rays. Stevenson was
finally informed about the broken screws.
Several months later, Dr. Ronald Sylvest, an orthopedic specialist at
the prison, examined Stevenson. Sylvest made two recommendations. First,
he suggested that Stevenson be seen by an orthopedic surgeon. He opined
that the broken screws were the likely cause of Stevenson’s severe ankle pain.
He also suggested that Stevenson’s duty status be changed to relieve him
from field work. He gave Stevenson a brace to stabilize his ankle until it could
be evaluated by a surgeon.
An x-ray taken in September 2021—ordered by Lavespere and
approved by defendant Dr. Paul M. Tocé—revealed that the broken screws
had “complicated” Stevenson’s ankle injury.
On March 11, 2022, Stevenson reported severe nerve pain and was
examined in the prison clinic. Ten days later, an orthopedic specialist
examined Stevenson and prescribed heel stretches.
Stevenson alleges that Lavespere and Tocé (collectively, “the
Defendants”) were involved in his medical care. He alleges that both
personally examined him for complaints about his ankle. Both allegedly knew
about the screws and had the authority to refer him to someone qualified to
repair them but did not. And both allegedly reviewed and declined his duty
status requests.
Stevenson acknowledges he has received some medical care, but he
claims it was either directed to other ailments, intended to be temporary, or
plainly insufficient to treat the broken screws.
3
Case: 23-30486 Document: 88-1 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/22/2024
No. 23-30486
At the time he filed this case, Stevenson remained on a duty status
that required him to labor in the fields despite his severe ankle pain. He had
not been seen by a surgeon, and the screws had not been repaired.
b. Procedural background
On July 13, 2022, Stevenson filed this lawsuit. He was not represented
by an attorney at the time. He brought a single claim against the Defendants
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that they each violated his right under the
Eighth Amendment to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.
There are two components to Stevenson’s § 1983 claim. As to the first
component, he alleges that the Defendants knew about the broken screws and
fielded his complaints of severe pain but ignored the problem. Second, he
claims that the Defendants knew that work in the fields was not appropriate
for him given his injury but refused to reassign him. He seeks monetary relief
and an injunction to force the Defendants to fix the screws and change his
duty status.
The Defendants moved to dismiss Stevenson’s case, arguing that the
doctrine of qualified immunity protected them from liability. The magistrate
judge granted Stevenson’s request to file a combined response and amended
complaint. But the magistrate judge declined to consider various medical
records that the Defendants had filed along with their motion to dismiss.
The magistrate judge then recommended that the district judge deny
the Defendants’ motion. The district court accepted the recommendation
over the Defendants’ objections and denied the motion to dismiss. This
appeal followed.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review de novo a district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss
based on qualified immunity. Brown v. Miller, 519 F.3d 231, 236 (5th Cir.
4
Case: 23-30486 Document: 88-1 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/22/2024
No. 23-30486
2008). Our review is based only on the specific factual allegations of the
complaint and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from them. Morgan
v. Swanson, 659 F.3d 359, 370 (5th Cir. 2011) (en banc). We are also required
to construe liberally complaints filed by prisoners who are not represented by
attorneys. Jackson v. Cain,
864 F.2d 1235, 1241 (5th Cir. 1989).
III. DISCUSSION
The Defendants argue that Stevenson’s allegations do not amount to
an Eighth Amendment violation. But even assuming they do, the Defendants
argue, governing law did not give officials fair warning that those actions were
unlawful, and therefore, qualified immunity applies.
Stevenson tries to rebut those arguments and also argues that we lack
power to consider the appeal. He contends our jurisdiction is limited to
whether the district court correctly applied the law when it denied qualified
immunity. But the Defendants’ challenge, he argues, is not to the district
court’s legal analysis but to the veracity of Stevenson’s allegations. 1
a. Appellate jurisdiction
We must resolve challenges to our jurisdiction first. Daves v. Dallas
Cnty., 64 F.4th 616, 621 (5th Cir. 2023) (en banc). A court’s jurisdiction is its
power to hear a case. See Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc.,
556 U.S. 635,
639 (2009). We have the power to review a district court’s denial of qualified
immunity at the motion to dismiss stage. Armstrong v. Ashley,
918 F.3d 419,
422 (5th Cir. 2019). But at this early stage, we are restricted to determining
“‘whether the facts pleaded establish’ ‘a violation of clearly-established
_____________________
1
Stevenson also argues that recent scholarship undermines the foundation of
Supreme Court precedent requiring the application of the qualified immunity doctrine to
claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Whatever the merits of Stevenson’s argument, we do not
reach them. The Supreme Court alone has “the prerogative of overruling its own
decisions.” Mallory v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co.,
600 U.S. 122, 136 (2023).
5
Case: 23-30486 Document: 88-1 Page: 6 Date Filed: 08/22/2024
No. 23-30486
law.’” Ramirez v. Escajeda, 921 F.3d 497, 501 (5th Cir. 2019) (quoting
Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 673 (2009)). In other words, a proper appeal
asks us “whether the district court erred in concluding as a matter of law that
officials are not entitled to [qualified immunity] on a given set of facts.” Id.
at 499 (citation omitted).
Stevenson contends that we lack jurisdiction over the appeal because
the Defendants predicate all of their arguments on disputed facts. We find
the contention overly broad. Most of the Defendants’ arguments are in fact
confined to the “given set of facts” before the magistrate judge—
Stevenson’s complaint, amended complaint, and exhibits. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 10(c). The Defendants’ arguments based on purported factual
inconsistencies or deficits within the four corners of the complaint are legal
in nature; they challenge whether, as a matter of law, the complaint shows a
violation of Stevenson’s rights. Cooper v. Brown, 844 F.3d 517, 522 (5th Cir.
2016).
But we agree that one section of the Defendants’ appellate brief raises
arguments based on facts not in the pleadings. They center on twenty-three
documents that the Defendants argue are part of Stevenson’s medical
records. The documents were apparently referenced by the pleadings but not
actually attached to them as exhibits.
As the Defendants concede, the magistrate judge had the discretion
not to consider the twenty-three documents and did not consider them. See
Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 224 F.3d 496, 499 (5th Cir. 2000)
(explaining court may consider documents referenced in, but not attached to,
complaint if documents “assist[] the plaintiff in establishing the basis of the
suit”). Because the magistrate judge did not consider the documents, they
did not bear on the district court’s legal determination. The facts contained
only in those documents are not part of the “given set of facts” before us.
6
Case: 23-30486 Document: 88-1 Page: 7 Date Filed: 08/22/2024
No. 23-30486
Ramirez, 921 F.3d at 499. We lack jurisdiction to review arguments based on
them.
b. Qualified immunity
Federal law, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1983, creates a legal claim for
individuals whose rights are violated by state officials. In response, officials
may raise the defense of qualified immunity. Cooper,
844 F.3d at 522. If they
do, the plaintiff must make two showings.
Id. First, he must show that he
adequately alleged that his rights were violated.
Id. Second, he must show
that, at the time his rights were violated, legal precedent clearly established
the officials’ actions as unlawful.
Id.
i. Eighth Amendment violation
Stevenson’s claims are based on the Eighth Amendment. The Eighth
Amendment protects individuals convicted of crimes from cruel and unusual
punishment. One facet of that protection is that prison officials must “ensure
that inmates receive adequate . . . medical care.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.
825, 832 (1994).
To succeed on a § 1983 claim based on a violation of that duty, a
prisoner must show that the officials acted with deliberate indifference. Id. at
834. That means the official “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to
[the prisoner’s] health or safety.” Id. at 837. The prisoner must do more than
express dissatisfaction with his treatment. Easter v. Powell, 467 F.3d 459, 464
(5th Cir. 2006). He must allege that officials “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 any serious
medical needs.”
Id. (quoting Domino v. Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Just.,
239 F.3d
752, 756 (5th Cir. 2001) (internal quotations omitted)).
Moreover, the prisoner’s medical need must be “serious”—meaning
either treatment has been recommended, or the need for treatment is “so
7
Case: 23-30486 Document: 88-1 Page: 8 Date Filed: 08/22/2024
No. 23-30486
apparent that even laymen would recognize” it. Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d
339, 345 n.12 (5th Cir. 2006).
Thus, Stevenson needed to allege facts that reasonably lead to the
conclusion that the Defendants knew of an excessive risk that Stevenson
would suffer severe pain if they failed to act, and they still chose not to act.
See Domino, 239 F.3d at 755. We start with his claim that the Defendants
refused to treat him for the broken screws. He alleges that the broken screws
caused him great pain and torment. He alleges the Defendants were each
responsible for his medical care yet “allow[ed] [him] to suffer indefinitely . .
. and refus[ed] to provide any treatment for the broken screws.” He also
alleges that the Defendants ignored a direct medical recommendation that
Stevenson be examined by a surgeon.
The Defendants principally argue that Stevenson’s own allegations
establish that they did treat Stevenson, and that he is just dissatisfied with the
treatment. They point to several types of treatment that Stevenson admits,
in the operative complaint, to having received—specifically, medication; a
low-sodium diet; TED hose (a type of compression sock); heel stretches; and
an ankle brace.
But Stevenson specifically alleges that those treatments were not
intended to fix the broken screws. He alleges that the medication and diet
were for high blood pressure. He alleges that the TED hose was for venous
insufficiency. He alleges that the heel stretches were for a heel spur. He
alleges that the brace he received from Sylvest was meant to temporarily
stabilize his ankle pending surgery, not as a permanent fix. Those plausible
factual allegations establish, for pleading purposes, that the Defendants never
provided treatment for the broken screws. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.
The Defendants next argue that a letter attached to the amended
complaint contradicts Stevenson’s allegation that Sylvest recommended
8
Case: 23-30486 Document: 88-1 Page: 9 Date Filed: 08/22/2024
No. 23-30486
surgery. Tocé wrote the letter to Stevenson nearly a month after Stevenson
filed this case. He wrote that Sylvest recommended the ankle brace and heel
stretches as treatment and did not recommend consultation with a surgeon.
If an exhibit to a complaint contradicts an allegation in the complaint,
the exhibit controls. Sligh v. City of Conroe, 87 F.4th 290, 298 (5th Cir. 2023).
But we find no contradiction. Stevenson’s attachment of the letter merely
acknowledges that Tocé claims that Sylvest did not recommend surgery. But
there is no evidence from Sylvest himself indicating that he never
recommended consultation with a surgeon.
Even if Sylvest never recommended surgery, we would not find that
fatal to Stevenson’s claim at this stage. Deliberate indifference does not
require a showing that officials disregarded a recommendation if the medical
need was “so apparent that even laymen would recognize that care is
required.” Gobert, 463 F.3d at 345 n.12. We think, drawing on “judicial
experience and common sense,” Iqbal,
556 U.S. at 679, that a layperson could
see that a brace and heel stretches cannot fix broken ankle screws.
Next, Stevenson alleges that the Defendants denied his duty status
requests despite knowing that keeping him in the fields would inflict
unnecessary pain and risk further damage to his ankle. We have said that an
official violates a prisoner’s Eighth Amendment rights if he requires the
prisoner to do work that he “kn[o]w[s] w[ill] significantly aggravate [the
prisoner’s] serious physical ailment.” Jackson, 864 F.2d at 1246; see also
Calhoun v. Hargrove,
312 F.3d 730, 734 (5th Cir. 2002). Stevenson’s
allegations satisfy that standard.
Contrary to the Defendants’ argument, we do not find Winston v.
Stacks, 243 F. App’x 805 (5th Cir. 2007) to counsel otherwise. There, a
plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim based on working conditions failed
because he had not alleged that his work assignment aggravated his medical
9
Case: 23-30486 Document: 88-1 Page: 10 Date Filed: 08/22/2024
No. 23-30486
condition or otherwise caused him any harm. Id. at 806. Stevenson alleges
that labor in the fields is what caused the screws to break—first in 2006 and
again in 2020, after Lavespere himself returned Stevenson to field duty—and
that, thereafter, the work caused him severe pain. Those allegations
distinguish Stevenson’s claims from Winston.
In sum, Stevenson sufficiently alleged that the Defendants violated his
right to receive adequate medical care in prison.
ii. Clearly established
Next, Stevenson must demonstrate that the violation of his rights was
“clearly established.” Cooper, 844 F.3d at 522. He must “point this court to
a legislative directive or case precedent that is sufficiently clear such that
every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates
that law.” Keller v. Fleming,
952 F.3d 216, 225 (5th Cir. 2020). Qualified
immunity will not be granted if, in light of that precedent,“[a]ny reasonable
person in [the Defendants’] position would have known that ignoring
[Stevenson’s] complaints . . . would be a violation of his rights under the
Eighth Amendment.” Rodrigue v. Grayson,
557 F. App’x 341, 347 (5th Cir.
2014) (citing Gobert,
463 F.3d at 346).
The Defendants argue that Stevenson failed to identify any “cases
that require [a prisoner] to be referred to an outside surgeon rather than the
orthopedic specialist” or that entitle a prisoner to “the duty status [he]
prefers.”
The Supreme Court has instructed courts to not “define clearly
established law at a high level of generality.” Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731,
742 (2011). Rather, precedent must speak to “the violative nature of [the]
particular conduct” and “the specific context of the case.” Mullenix v. Luna,
577 U.S. 7, 12 (2015) (emphasis omitted). That means plaintiffs must point
to “similar circumstances” rather than “generalized proposition[s]” to
10
Case: 23-30486 Document: 88-1 Page: 11 Date Filed: 08/22/2024
No. 23-30486
show that caselaw established particular conduct as unlawful. Rogers v.
Jarrett, 63 F.4th 971, 977 (5th Cir. 2023).
Still, the Defendants’ framing is too narrow. A plaintiff need not show
that “the very action in question has previously been held unlawful.” Easter,
467 F.3d at 465 (emphasis added) (quoting Anderson v. Creighton,
483 U.S.
635, 640 (1987)). The test is whether every reasonable official would know
that their actions are unconstitutional. Villarreal v. City of Laredo,
94 F.4th
374, 395 (5th Cir. 2024) (en banc). At the end of the day, “[t]he sine qua non
of the clearly-established inquiry is ‘fair warning.’” Morgan,
659 F.3d at 372
(quoting Hope v. Pelzer,
536 U.S. 730, 741 (2002)). To require Stevenson to
produce cases about broken surgical screws or orthopedic surgeons is more
than necessary for fair warning.
There are cases enough establishing the Defendants’ alleged acts as
clearly unconstitutional. In Easter v. Powell, a prison nurse knew the plaintiff
had a history of cardiac problems. 467 F.3d at 464. But when he reported
severe chest pain, she first directed him to the pharmacy, and when she
learned it was closed, she sent him back to his cell.
Id. at 463–64. The nurse’s
plainly ineffective “treatment” was tantamount to turning a deaf ear.
Id. at
464. And, we stated plainly, “the law [is] clearly established that a prison
inmate [can] demonstrate an Eighth Amendment violation by showing that a
prison official ‘refused to treat him . . . [or] ignored his complaints.’”
Id.
(quoting Domino,
239 F.3d at 756).
In Carlucci v. Chapa, a dentist recommended that a prisoner’s
fractured teeth be repaired. 884 F.3d 534, 536–37 (5th Cir. 2018). In the
meantime, the dentist gave the prisoner a bite guard to avoid further damage.
Id. at 537. Ultimately, and despite the prisoner’s repeated requests, prison
officials never saw to it that the prisoner’s teeth were repaired.
Id. As a result,
he experienced extreme pain and further dental damage.
Id. at 539. We
11
Case: 23-30486 Document: 88-1 Page: 12 Date Filed: 08/22/2024
No. 23-30486
concluded that the officials’ inaction constituted deliberate indifference. Id.
And again, we made the rule clear: “[t]he denial of recommended medical
treatment is . . . sufficient to show deliberate indifference.”
Id. at 538.
These cases gave the Defendants fair warning. They should have
known from Easter that they had a duty to try to provide effective treatment
for the broken screws. They should have known from Carlucci that they could
not ignore a medical recommendation or rely on a temporary solution that is
clearly insufficient to meet their patient’s need.
The Defendants say these cases do not tell them “what measures
[they] were required to take once they learned of the broken screws.” We
disagree. The cases provide an answer that should have been obvious: fix the
screws.
As for Stevenson’s duty status claim, we look to Jackson v. Cain.
There, a prisoner brought an Eighth Amendment claim based on work duties
he claimed were “inappropriate to his medical condition.” 864 F.2d at 1246.
He specifically alleged that officials knew he suffered from syphilis and knew
that exposure to sunlight would hinder his treatment but still forced him to
work in the sun.
Id. at 1239, 1246–47. We concluded that those allegations
amounted to deliberate indifference.
Stevenson’s medical condition is different, but his circumstances are
essentially the same. He alleges that the Defendants knew of the broken
screws and knew that field labor was likely to worsen his condition and cause
him severe pain but still forced him to do it. Jackson clearly established that
such circumstances, if proven true, violate the Eighth Amendment. Id. at
1244, 1246; see also Calhoun, 312 F.3d at 734–35 (finding a claim for deliberate
indifference where a prison official purportedly knew of an inmate’s medical
work restrictions, yet forced him to work far beyond those limitations).
12
Case: 23-30486 Document: 88-1 Page: 13 Date Filed: 08/22/2024
No. 23-30486
Consequently, Stevenson has sufficiently alleged that the Defendants
violated his Eighth Amendment rights through actions that, at the time, were
clearly established as unconstitutional.
Stevenson has satisfied both prongs of the qualified immunity test.
The district court did not err in denying the Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
IV. CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM.
13
