Thompson v. LeBlanc et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JD THOMPSON, III (#106841) CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
25-545-JWD-RLB
JAMES LEBLANC, ET AL.
ORDER
The pro se Plaintiff, an inmate confined at the Elayn Hunt Correctional Center, St. Gabriel,
Louisiana, filed this proceeding pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against numerous defendants,
complaining that his constitutional rights are being violated due to exposure to environmental
tobacco smoke (“ETS”). Plaintiff will be ordered to amend his Complaint as set forth below.
Exposure to ETS
In order to plead an Eighth Amendment violation for exposure to unreasonably high
levels of ETS, a prisoner must satisfy a two-prong test. Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 35–36
(1993). First, a prisoner must prove objectively that he is being exposed to unreasonably high
levels of ETS. Id. at 35. Making this showing “requires more than a scientific and statistical
inquiry into the seriousness of the potential harm” caused by exposure to ETS. Id. at 36. “It also
requires a court to assess whether society considers the risk that the prisoner complains of to be
so grave that it violates contemporary standards of decency to expose anyone unwillingly to such
a risk.” Id. Second, the prisoner must show subjectively that prison authorities demonstrated
“deliberate indifference” to his plight, determined “in light of the prison's current attitude and
conduct,” including the adoption and enforcement of a no-smoking policy and the realities of
prison administration. Id. at 36; Fletcher v. Collins, 55 F.3d 632 (5th Cir. 1995), 1995 WL
313933, at *1.
Case 3:25-cv-00545-JWD-RLB Document 14 01/14/26 Page 1 of 3

Deliberate Indifference
Deliberate indifference requires that a prison official actually knows that an inmate faces
a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable steps to
abate it. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994). The official must both be aware of facts
from which an inference may be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must
also actually draw the inference. Id. at 837. Although the adoption of a smoking policy bears
heavily on the inquiry into deliberate indifference, so also does the question of enforcement
thereof. See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. at 36–37.
Personal Involvement
In order for a prison official to be found liable under § 1983, the official must have been
personally and directly involved in conduct causing an alleged deprivation of an inmate’s
constitutional rights, or there must be a causal connection between the actions of the official and
the constitutional violation sought to be redressed. Lozano v. Smith, 718 F.2d 756, 768 (5th Cir.
1983). Any allegation that the defendant is responsible for the actions of subordinate officers or
co-employees under a theory of vicarious responsibility or respondeat superior is alone
insufficient to state a claim under § 1983. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009), citing
Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). See also Bell v. Livingston,
356 F. App’x. 715, 716–17 (5th Cir. 2009) (recognizing that “[a] supervisor may not be held
liable for a civil rights violation under any theory of respondeat superior or vicarious liability”).
Further, in the absence of direct personal participation by a supervisory official in an alleged
constitutional violation, an inmate plaintiff must allege that the deprivation of his constitutional
rights occurred as a result of a subordinate’s implementation of the supervisor’s affirmative
Case 3:25-cv-00545-JWD-RLB Document 14 01/14/26 Page 2 of 3

RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
wrongful policies or as a result of a breach by the supervisor of an affirmative duty specially
imposed by state law. Lozano v. Smith, supra, 718 F.2d at 768.
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint
In the present matter, the plaintiff has made no allegations in his Amended Complaint
regarding the level of environmental tobacco smoke to which he is allegedly being or has been
exposed. Accordingly, the plaintiff's complaint currently fails to satisfy the first prong of the
Helling test, which requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that he is or was being exposed to
unreasonably high levels of environmental tobacco smoke.
The plaintiff has also failed to sufficiently allege that any of the named defendants have
undertaken any action which may be characterized as a violation of the plaintiff's constitutional
rights. The plaintiff does not assert that any of the defendants has been subjectively aware of the
extent of his exposure to ETS. Nor does the plaintiff make any allegations regarding a smoking
policy or lack of enforcement thereof. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that, within 21 days of the date of this Order, plaintiff shall amend his
Complaint by: (1) stating facts regarding the level of environmental tobacco smoke to which he
is allegedly being or has been exposed; 2) stating facts detailing how each defendant was
personally involved and deliberately indifferent to the plaintiff’s exposure to ETS.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that failure to amend the Complaint, as ordered, may
result in dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on January 14, 2026.
S
Case 3:25-cv-00545-JWD-RLB Document 14 01/14/26 Page 3 of 3