govinfo:USCOURTS-laed-2_25-cv-01070-0

1 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 
 
BRETT FONTENELLE,     CIVIL ACTION  
   
VERSUS        NO: 25-1070 
 
GERALD TURLICH, JR. ET AL    SECTION: C (2) 
 
 
ORDER AND REASONS 
 
Before the Court is defendants’ Motion to Dismiss filed pursuant to Federal 
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on November 24, 2025 (Rec. Doc. 33).  The motion 
is GRANTED. 
BACKGROUND 
Plaintiff, Brett Fontenelle , brings this action against state entities and 
employees in their individual capacities pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 1 Fontenelle 
has previously amended his complaint twice attempting to state a claim.2  
On May 29, 2024, Fontenelle was arrested and taken to the Plaquemines 
Parish Detention Center. 3  Upon his arrival, correctional staff performed intake 
screening and charted Fontenelle’s mental health history. 4 Soon after, Fontenelle 
began acting  erratically and became confrontational with corrections officers. 5 
 
1 R.Doc.33 
2 See R.Doc. 1, 18, 29.  
3 R.Doc.33.  
4 R.Doc.33.  
5 R.Doc.37.  
Case 2:25-cv-01070-WJC-DPC     Document 46     Filed 04/16/26     Page 1 of 6
2 
 
Detention center and CorrectHealth staff worked with Fontenelle to complete his 
medical screening. When Fontenelle refused tuberculosis testing, he was placed in 
isolation.  
Upon the completion of his medical screening, CorrectHealth staff requested 
Fontenelle’s medical records via facsimile  on May 29, 2024 . The requested 
information was not sent to CorrectHealth until June 5, 2024.  
Before receiving medical records, Fontenelle was treated with Risperdal, an 
antipsychotic drug used to treat schizophrenia. After receiving the medical records 
on June 5, 2024, Fontenelle’s medication was changed to Olanzapine, which treats 
multiple psychotic disorders, including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.  
After the medication changed, Fontenelle was taken to the infirmary for 
evaluation. While at the infirmary,  he became restless and confront ational with  
correctional officers. Fontenelle fell off a mezzanine while trying to flee his guards. 
The subject claims arise from the fall. Fontenelle alleges defendants knowingly 
failed to provide medical care while Fontenelle suffered from a “bipolar/psychotic 
state.”6   
LEGAL STANDARD 
A Rule 12(b)(6) motion challenges the sufficiency of a plaintiff’s allegations. 
A complaint, or any part of it, may be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon 
 
6 R.Doc.37 p.1.  
Case 2:25-cv-01070-WJC-DPC     Document 46     Filed 04/16/26     Page 2 of 6
3 
 
which relief may be granted if plaintiff fails to set forth factual allegations that would 
entitle him to relief. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Cuvillier 
v. Taylor, 503 F.3d 397, 401 (5th Cir. 2007).  
To survive, a complaint must contain sufficient facts, accepted as true, to state 
a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 
(2009). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads the factual content 
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for 
the misconduct alleged . Id. at 678. Determining whether a complaint states a 
plausible claim for relief is a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court 
to draw on its judicial experience and common sense. Id. at 679.  
In evaluating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court should confine itself to the 
pleadings and documents attached to the complaint. Kennedy v. Chase Manhattan 
Bank USA, NA, 369 F.3d 833, 839 (5 th Cir. 2004); Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean 
Witter, 224 F.3d 496, 498 (5th Cir. 2000). The Court may also consider documents 
attached to a motion to dismiss or an opposition to that motion when the documents 
are referred to in the pleadings and are central to a plaintiff’s claims.  Carter v. Target 
Corp, 541 Fed. Appx. 413, 416 (5th Cir. 2013).  The court “may also consider matters 
of which [it] may take judicial notice.”  Hall v. Hodgkins, 305 F. App’x 224, 227 
(5th Cir. 2008) (citing Lovelace v. Software Spectrum, Inc., 78 F.3d 1015, 1017-18 
(5th Cir. 1996)). 
Case 2:25-cv-01070-WJC-DPC     Document 46     Filed 04/16/26     Page 3 of 6
4 
 
While detailed factual allegations are not required, a complaint must offer 
more than mere labels, legal conclusions, or formulaic recitations of the elements of 
a cause of action. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. The complaint is construed in the light most 
favorable to plaintiff, accepting as true all well -pleaded factual allegations and 
drawing all reasonable inferences in plaintiff’s favor. Lovick v. Ritemoney Ltd., 378 
F.3d 433, 437 (5 th Cir. 2004). However, the court  will not accept “conclusory 
allegations, unwarranted factual inferences, or legal conclusions” as true. Ferrer v. 
Chevron Corp., 484 F.3d 776, 780 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting Plotkin v. IP Axess Inc., 
407 F.3d 690, 696 (5 th Cir. 2005)). If factual allegations are insufficient to raise a 
right to relief above the speculative level, the claim should be dismissed. Twombly, 
550 U.S. at 555.   
Here, Fontenelle’s medical records and intake forms from the detention center 
are referred to his complaints and are central to his claims. Thus, the court will 
consider Fontenelle’s medical records and intake forms attached to the motion to 
dismiss.7   
Fontenelle’s claims require proof that he was exposed to “a substantial risk of 
serious harm,” and the employees acted with “deliberate indifference.”  Gobert v. 
Calwell, 463 F.3d 339 (5th Cir. 2006). A disagreement or dispute regarding the nature 
of medical treatment is generally not actionable under Section 1983, unless plaintiff 
 
7 R.Doc. 27, 33.  
Case 2:25-cv-01070-WJC-DPC     Document 46     Filed 04/16/26     Page 4 of 6
5 
 
establishes exceptional circumstances. Banuelos v. McFarland, 41 F.3d 232, 235 (5th 
Cir. 1995).  
If plaintiff alleges exceptional circumstances, the allegations may be rebutted 
with medical records of sick calls, examinations, diagnoses, and medications. Id.  
Fontenelle’s allegations regarding his medical treatment are insufficient. The 
allegations center around the timing and treatment he received at the detention 
center.8 Fontenelle states he “was not being treated” during his detention. 9 His 
medical records refute this . Fontenelle’s mental state was screened and 
documented.10 When Fontenelle refused certain medical screening, he was placed in 
isolation, but still monitored, examined, and treated.  
CorrectHealth made a good faith effort to obtain Fontenelle’s medical records 
to ensure he received proper treatment. Between the time the records were requested 
and received, Fontenelle was administered Risperdal, an antipsychotic drug used to 
treat schizophrenia. Fontenelle’s medical records show he was previously receiving 
antipsychotic medications. When the records were  received, his  medication was 
changed to Olanzapine, another drug  used to treat  psychotic disorders, including 
schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.  
 
8 R.Doc. 1, 18, 29.  
9 Id. at PP 47.  
10 R.Doc.33.  
Case 2:25-cv-01070-WJC-DPC     Document 46     Filed 04/16/26     Page 5 of 6
6 
 
Fontenelle’s allegations reflect, at best, disagreements over medical treatment. 
The complaints do not recite facts supporting proof of  “deliberate indifference” to 
his condition.  
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above,  
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (R ec. Doc. 33) is 
GRANTED. Plaintiff’s claims are dismissed with prejudice.  
New Orleans, Louisiana this _____day of April 2026 
 
 
 
__________________________________ 
          WILLIAM J. CRAIN 
  UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
 
 
Case 2:25-cv-01070-WJC-DPC     Document 46     Filed 04/16/26     Page 6 of 6

Passage view · GavelSight