Fontenot v. Correcthealth St. Tammany, LLC et al

Page 1 of 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
DANIEL FONTENOT CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO: 25-2394
CORRECTHEALTH ST. TAMMANY,
LLC, ET AL.
SECTION: "A" (4)
ORDER AND REASONS
The following motion is before the Court: Motion to Dismiss (Rec. Doc. 3) filed
by the defendants, CorrectHealth St. Tammany, RN Michelle Coyne, RN Brittney
Boihem, LPN Kayla Watkins, LPN Brenda Albarado, LPN Nicole Coleman, NP Kenneth
Pitcher, and Dr. Samuel Gore. The plaintiff, Daniel Fontenot, opposes the motion. The
motion, submitted for consideration on March 18, 2026, is before the Court on the briefs
without oral argument.
This action is brought against the defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On
September 1, 2024, the plaintiff, Daniel Fontenot, was arrested and transported to the
St. Tammany Parish Jail. At the time of his arrest, Fontenot provided the arresting
officer a bag containing all of his required daily medications, which included a container
of prescription Xanax pills. (Rec. Doc. 1, Complaint ¶ 6). Fontenot alleges that at the
initial medical screening he informed the jail’s medical staff that he had been prescribed
Xanax for the last 20 years for anxiety, that he was supposed to take the drug three
times a day, and that the failure to do so could result in severe withdrawal symptoms,
Case 2:25-cv-02394-JCZ-KWR Document 10 Filed 03/25/26 Page 1 of 5

Page 2 of 5
including seizures and death. (Complaint ¶ 9). Fontenot alleges several subsequent
encounters with the jail’s medical staff (certain of the individual defendants) over the
next two days wherein he specifically advised them that he had not been provided his
prescription Xanax. By day three Fontenot was feeling sick and he knew that he was
suffering from withdrawal but when he advised the medical staff he was ignored. (Id. ¶
17). On September 3, 2024, approximately 60 hours after his arrest and incarceration,
Fontenot suffered a seizure while in the shower where he fell injuring his entire body,
but specifically hitting his head resulting in a concussion and laceration to his scalp
requiring seven staples. (Id. ¶¶ 19, 24). Fontenot was transported to the hospital in an
ambulance where he suffered a second seizure. (Id. ¶ 20). After he arrived at the
hospital Fontenot had a third seizure. (Id. 21). Fontenot remained hospitalized in the
ICU through September 5, 2024. (Id. ¶ 22). Fontenot alleges that the seizures (and the
resulting physical injuries) were the result of his cold-turkey withdrawal from his
prescription Xanax medication, a factual allegation that the Court accepts as true.
It is Fontenot’s position that the failure to provide him with his prescription Xanax,
or at the very least to avoid abruptly stopping the medication, was the result of
deliberate indifference to his medical needs in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment
rights. Vis à vis CorrectHealth, Fontenot alleges that the facility had a policy in place to
refuse to provide inmates with Xanax and/or benzodiazepine even if it was medically
necessary, and to refuse to provide a course of treatment for Xanax/benzodiazepine
withdrawal, instead forcing inmates to go “cold turkey.” (Id. ¶ 33).
Case 2:25-cv-02394-JCZ-KWR Document 10 Filed 03/25/26 Page 2 of 5

Page 3 of 5
Via the instant motion, all Defendants move for dismissal arguing that Fontenot’s
complaint is nothing more than a collection of legal conclusions, unsupported by
evidence or specificity.
The central issue in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is whether, in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff, the complaint states a valid claim for relief. Gentilello v. Rege,
627 F.3d 540, 544 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting Doe v. MySpace, Inc., 528 F.3d 413, 418
(5th Cir. 2008)). To avoid dismissal, a plaintiff must plead sufficient facts to Astate a
claim for relief that is plausible on its face.@ Id. (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct.
1937, 1949 (2009)). AA claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged.@ Id. The Court does not accept as true Aconclusory
allegations, unwarranted factual inferences, or legal conclusions.@ Id. (quoting Plotkin v.
IP Axess, Inc., 407 F.3d 690, 696 (5th Cir. 2005)). Legal conclusions must be supported
by factual allegations. Id. (quoting Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1950).
In the context of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the Court must accept all
factual allegations in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in the
plaintiff=s favor. Lormand v. US Unwired, Inc., 565 F.3d 228, 232 (5th Cir. 2009) (citing
Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308 (2007); Scheuer v. Rhodes,
416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974); Lovick v. Ritemoney, Ltd., 378 F.3d 433, 437 (5th Cir. 2004)).
However, the foregoing tenet is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at
1949. Thread-bare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
Case 2:25-cv-02394-JCZ-KWR Document 10 Filed 03/25/26 Page 3 of 5

Page 4 of 5
conclusory statements, do not suffice. Id. (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550,
U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
At the outset, Fontenot’s factual allegations undisputedly state a claim for
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. And Fontenot alleges a policy
sufficient to support his Monell claim against CorrectHealth.1
What Fontenot understandably cannot allege with specificity, and what the
individual defendants therefore grasp upon, is the level of involvement that each of the
named defendants had in the failure to properly address from a medical standpoint the
withholding of his Xanax medication. Fontenot was an inmate. Fontenot left the jail in a
state of medical emergency. He only has firsthand knowledge of whom he told (and he
alleges that he did so several times) about the medication that he needed but he has no
way of knowing how far up the chain of medical authority that information went only to
be ignored. Someone in that chain of authority or several someones were aware of the
facts and refused to act. Under § 1983 individual defendants are only liable for their own
acts not those of other actors but in this case discovery will be necessary to determine
which of the individual defendants are potentially culpable for Fontenot’s injuries.
Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons;
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (Rec. Doc. 3) filed by the
1 Monell v. N.Y. City Dep't Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978). Well-established law holds that
governmental entities are not susceptible to vicarious liability for the acts of their employees.
City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 385 (1989) (citing Monell, 436 U.S. at 658). It
is only when the execution of the entity's policy or custom causes the constitutional violation
that the municipality may be liable under § 1983. Id. (citing Springfield v. Kibbe, 480 U.S.
257, 267 (1987) (O'Connor, J., dissenting)).
Case 2:25-cv-02394-JCZ-KWR Document 10 Filed 03/25/26 Page 4 of 5

Page 5 of 5
defendants, CorrectHealth St. Tammany, RN Michelle Coyne, RN Brittney Boihem, LPN
Kayla Watkins, LPN Brenda Albarado, LPN Nicole Coleman, NP Kenneth Pitcher, and
Dr. Samuel Gore, is DENIED.
March 25, 2026
___________________________________
JAY C. ZAINEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-02394-JCZ-KWR Document 10 Filed 03/25/26 Page 5 of 5