Court Opinion

ID: 9370074
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-10 19:00:27.77451+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:19.167118
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-30248     Document: 00516641661         Page: 1    Date Filed: 02/10/2023

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit                                  United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                Fifth Circuit

                                                                              FILED
                                                                       February 10, 2023
                                  No. 22-30248
                                                                          Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                               Clerk

   Brittany Guillot, on behalf of her minor child T.A.G.,

                                                           Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                      versus

   Jay Russell, in his official capacity as Ouachita Parish Sheriff;
   Pat Johnson, Warden Ouachita Correctional Center;
   John Doe, Ouachita Parish Sheriff’s Deputy,

                                                         Defendants—Appellees.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Western District of Louisiana
                            USDC No. 3:20-CV-1537

   Before Jones, Smith, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
   Jerry E. Smith, Circuit Judge:
          Blake Powell committed suicide in his cell. On behalf of her minor
   child, Brittany Guillot sued Pat Johnson, the then-warden at Ouachita Cor-
   rectional Center (“OCC”), and Jay Russell, the sheriff of Ouachita Parish, in
   their official capacities; she also purports to have sued them in their indi-
   vidual capacities. All federal claims are brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
   violations of Powell’s Eighth Amendment rights. Guillot additionally sued
   under related state laws for negligence and vicarious liability. The district
Case: 22-30248         Document: 00516641661             Page: 2      Date Filed: 02/10/2023

                                          No. 22-30248

   court granted summary judgment, and we affirm.

                                                I.
                                               A.
          On March 13, 2020, Powell committed suicide in his cell at OCC,
   where he had been incarcerated for four months after his arrest for the
   unauthorized entry of an inhabited dwelling and possession of a controlled
   dangerous substance. 1 Powell is allegedly the father of minor T.A.G., on
   whose behalf Guillot sued. Guillot contends that defendants are legally
   responsible for Powell’s suicide because, as an inmate, Powell was under
   OCC’s care and supervision.
          At his booking on November 9, 2019, Powell stated that he asked the
   victim of his burglaries to “kill him” and was subsequently placed on suicide
   watch, from which Dr. David Boyle, the OCC mental health professional,
   released him on November 13. On January 23, 2020, Powell spoke to OCC
   personnel, through the speaker box in his cell, stating that he was suicidal. He
   was placed on a second suicide watch with an associated suicide log. Boyle
   released Powell from suicide watch on January 27 and recommended that he
   return the next week for a follow-up visit, which never occurred. At the
   January 27 visit, Boyle stated that Powell had no signs of suicidal inclinations
   and seemed well.
          On February 17, Powell was involved in a fight with another inmate
   and told a deputy that he would keep fighting anyone placed in a cell with
   him. The next day, OCC personnel noticed that Powell was “acting distant”
   with a “blank stare” and had abrasions on his wrist. There is no record evi-
   dence discussing how severe the abrasions were. An OCC personnel member

          1
              Powell pleaded guilty in February 2020 and received a two-year sentence.

                                                2
Case: 22-30248         Document: 00516641661          Page: 3    Date Filed: 02/10/2023

                                       No. 22-30248

   noticed that Powell was unkempt, was not eating, had lost weight, was sleep-
   ing poorly, was not communicative, and was depressed. Powell told staff that
   he “need[ed] help” and was then placed in a cell for observation, but not on
   suicide watch, nor was he scheduled to meet with a mental health profes-
   sional. He was instead placed on “heightened observation.” There is no defi-
   nition or official procedure provided by OCC for what heightened observa-
   tion is.
              On March 3, Powell told OCC personnel that he believed he had been
   raped in his cell and asked to be placed in a cell alone. Although the rape
   allegation turned out to be false, OCC’s nurse recommended that Powell visit
   Boyle. But Powell did not see Boyle, who testified that given the following
   behaviors, he would have wanted to see Powell.
              On March 13, Powell expressed frustration with his cellmate and asked
   for the cellmate to be removed. A prison employee did so. Powell was found
   on the morning of March 14. He had hanged himself with a towel tied to his
   shower rod.
              The employees assigned to Powell’s dorm signed affidavits stating that
   they did not see any risk of suicide from Powell on March 13–14 and did not
   see any distress from Powell that night, nor any indication that he was a
   danger to himself. 2 Named defendants Johnson and Russell had no interac-
   tion with Powell on March 13.

                                            B.
              OCC’s Policy and Procedure Manual includes a Suicide Prevention
   Policy. All staff responsible for offender supervision are ostensibly trained in

              2
            The Deputies assigned to Powell’s dorm that night were Deputy Webb Crecink,
   Lieutenant Richie Varino, Corporal Daryl Wells, Deputy Roy McLendon, Deputy Brian
   Milstead, Corporal Vance Whitton, and Deputy Ethan Bonner.

                                            3
Case: 22-30248      Document: 00516641661          Page: 4    Date Filed: 02/10/2023

                                    No. 22-30248

   the policy. The policy starts at intake, where deputies are required to look for
   signs of suicidal inclinations. The policy requires staff to report, to their
   supervisor, any inmate with the following signs:
          1. Keeps to himself and speaks very little to others.
          2. When he does speak, he says little and usually says it
          slowly.
          3. Extremely restless, pacing up and down, and wrings hands.
          4. May cry and be unable to sleep.
          5. Quiet and subdued.
          6. Threatens suicide.
          7. Begins to give away personal items.
          If any of these conditions is observed, the supervisor must place the
   inmate on suicide watch, which comes with the following instructions and
   restrictions:
          1. Contact the medical staff.
          2. The offender is to be dressed in quilted smock.
          3. The offender is to be placed into a holding cell.
          4. The offender placed on suicide watch will be observed and
          logged at least every fifteen (15) minutes.
          5. Meals served to offenders on suicide watch will be served
          on disposable plates and utensils.
          6. Only the medical [doctor] will be able to remove an
          offender from suicide watch.
          7. If an offender is placed on suicide watch, his personal
          property should be removed from the dorm and stored.
          8. An offender on suicide watch will not be allowed to have
          any property in the cell.
          Deputies are provided annual training in these suicide-prevention
   policies. On the night of Powell’s suicide, seven of the eight deputies on duty
   had undergone the training. The one deputy who had not done the training
   was shadowing a deputy who had. Paul Campbell, the current warden of
   OCC, initially stated at his deposition that there had been several suicides at

                                          4
Case: 22-30248       Document: 00516641661           Page: 5    Date Filed: 02/10/2023

                                      No. 22-30248

   OCC in the past five years, before amending his testimony in an affidavit to
   state the last suicide before Powell had been in 2011.

                                            C.
          As stated, Guillot sued Johnson and Russell in their official capacities.
   She also purports to have sued both of them in their individual capacities. All
   federal claims are brought per § 1983 for alleged violations of Powell’s Eighth
   Amendment rights. Guillot also sued under related state law laws for negli-
   gence and vicarious liability per La. Civ. Code arts. 2315 (liability for acts
   causing damages), 2315.1 (survival action), 2315.2 (wrongful death action),
   2316 (negligence, imprudence, or want of skill), 2317 (acts of others and of
   things in custody), 2320 (acts of servants, students, or apprentices), and 2324
   (liability as solidary or joint and divisible obligation).

                                            II.
          This court reviews a summary judgment de novo and “appl[ies] the
   same criteria used by the district court in the first instance.” Norman v.
   Apache Corp., 19 F.3d 1017, 1021 (5th Cir. 1994). “As is appropriate at the
   summary-judgment stage, facts that are subject to genuine dispute are viewed
   in the light most favorable to [the non-moving party].”        Taylor v. Riojas,
   141 S. Ct. 52, 53 n.1 (2020) (per curiam).
          Summary judgment can be granted only where, with the evidence
   before the court, the “movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to
   any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
   Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A fact is “material” when its resolution might affect
   the case’s outcome under governing law. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
   477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). “A genuine dispute of material fact exists ʻif the
   evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmov-
   ing party.’” Southern Ins. Co. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 830 F.3d 337, 343 (5th
   Cir. 2016) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248).

                                            5
Case: 22-30248       Document: 00516641661          Page: 6    Date Filed: 02/10/2023

                                     No. 22-30248

            Although courts will “resolve factual controversies in favor of the
   nonmoving party,” an actual controversy exists only “when both parties
   have submitted evidence of contradictory facts.” Little v. Liquid Air Corp.,
   37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (per curiam) (quoting from the
   opinion of the district court, which the Fifth Circuit adopted in full). “‘If the
   evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative,’ summary
   judgment is appropriate.” Cutting Underwater Techs. USA, Inc. v. Eni U.S.
   Operating Co., 671 F.3d 512, 517 (5th Cir. 2012) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S.
   at 248).
            There can be no genuine dispute as to a material fact where a party
   fails “to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element
   essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of
   proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). “[A]
   complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving
   party’s case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.” Id. at 323. Spec-
   ulative theories cannot defeat a motion for summary judgment. See Little,
   37 F.3d at 1077. “[W]e may affirm a summary judgment on any ground sup-
   ported by the record and advanced below, regardless of whether the district
   court relied upon it.” Dillard v. City of Austin, 837 F.3d 557, 562 n.2 (5th Cir.
   2016).

                                         III.
            Guillot brings official-capacity claims against Johnson, the warden,
   and Russell, the sheriff, claiming the policies and procedures at OCC violated
   Powell’s Eighth Amendment rights. Namely, Guillot alleges that defendants
   were aware of Powell’s suicidal tendencies yet ignored their procedures and,
   instead, followed a “heightened-observation” policy that was so deficient it
   amounted to deliberate indifference to Powell’s medical needs. As noted,
   Guillot also purportedly brings claims against both defendants in their indi-

                                          6
Case: 22-30248         Document: 00516641661               Page: 7      Date Filed: 02/10/2023

                                          No. 22-30248

   vidual capacities. Finally, Guillot brings state-level claims for negligence
   against both defendants. All of these claims fail.

                                                A.
                                                1.
           As a threshold matter, Johnson cannot be sued in his official capacity.
   Official-capacity suits may be brought only against an official acting as a pol-
   icymaker, such that his decisions represent the official policy of the local gov-
   ernment unit. Jett v. Dall. Indep. Sch. Dist., 491 U.S. 701, 737 (1989). We look
   to state law when making that determination. City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik,
   485 U.S. 112, 124 (1988) (plurality opinion). In Louisiana, the sheriff is the
   final policymaker. 3 The district court judged so accordingly.
           Guillot does not attempt to rebut that judgment. Parties forfeit con-
   tentions by inadequately briefing them on appeal. Rollins v. Home Depot USA,
   8 F.4th 393, 397 n.1 (5th Cir. 2021); see also Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A).
   Adequate briefing requires a party to raise an issue in its opening brief. United
   States v. Bowen, 818 F.3d 179, 192 n.8 (5th Cir. 2016). “To be adequate, a brief
   must address the district court’s analysis and explain how it erred.” SEC v.
   Hallam, 42 F.4th 316, 327 (5th Cir. 2022) (quotation omitted).
           In her reply brief, Guillot attempts to address the judgment. Though
   the issue is forfeited regardless, her arguments are meritless. First, she cites
   Walker v. Upshaw, 515 F. App’x 334 (5th Cir. 2013) (per curiam), which is
   inapposite in that it analyzes whether a warden sued in his individual capacity
   was entitled to qualified immunity. 4 Second, Guillot posits that Johnson is

           3
              See La. Const. art. 5, § 27 (“[The sheriff ] shall be the chief law enforcement
   officer in the parish.”); La. Stat. § 5539 (“Each sheriff . . . shall preserve the peace and
   apprehend public offenders.”); see also Craig v. St. Martin Parish Sheriff, 861 F. Supp. 1290,
   1300 (W.D. La. 1994).
           4
               See Walker v. Inst. Div. of Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Just., No. H-08-530, 2011 WL

                                                 7
Case: 22-30248         Document: 00516641661              Page: 8       Date Filed: 02/10/2023

                                          No. 22-30248

   listed on the front cover of OCC’s official policies and procedures handbook,
   making him a policymaker. That conclusory contention still does not make
   Johnson a final policymaker under state law. 5

                                                2.
           Although Russell can be sued in his official capacity, those claims also
   fail. The elements under § 1983 are that the conduct (1) deprived a person of
   rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the
   United States and (2) was committed by a person acting under color of state
   law. 42 U.S.C. § 1983; see also Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980).
   Russell, as the final policymaker in the Parish, does satisfy the second require-
   ment and can be sued in his official capacity, assuming Guillot provides evi-
   dence that the conduct prong is met.
           A claim against government officials in their official capacity is a
   de facto suit against the local government entity of which the officials act as
   agents. Burge v. Parish of St. Tammany, 187 F.3d 452, 466 (5th Cir. 1999);
   Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 25 (1991). Section 1983 does not allow recovery
   under a theory of respondeat superior; a plaintiff must show that the local gov-
   ernment’s policy or custom violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
   Hafer, 502 U.S. at 25; Monell v. New York City Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S.
   658, 691 (1978); Leffall v. Dall. Indep. Sch. Dist., 28 F.3d 521, 525 (5th Cir.

   3924981, at *3 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 7, 2011), rev’d by Walker, 515 F. App’x at 341. Walker also
   looked to Texas, not Louisiana, law.
           5
             Moreover, any suit against Johnson in his official capacity would be a suit against
   OCC directly, which is not a legal entity capable of being sued. See, e.g., Harris v. Brown,
   No. 3:21-cv-01332, 2021 WL 5822100, at *11 (W.D. La. Nov. 22, 2021) (“Harris sued
   Weatherly in his official capacity as warden of the [Richland Parish Detention Center] . . .
   However, this court consistently has held that the RPDC is not a juridical person capable
   of being sued.”).

                                                8
Case: 22-30248         Document: 00516641661               Page: 9       Date Filed: 02/10/2023

                                           No. 22-30248

   1994).
            “[T]he custom or policy [must] serve[] as the moving force behind the
   [constitutional] violation” at issue. Meadowbriar Home For Children, Inc. v.
   Gunn, 81 F.3d 521, 533 (5th Cir. 1996). Alternatively, the plaintiff must dem-
   onstrate that his injuries result from the policy’s execution. Fraire v. City of
   Arlington, 957 F.2d 1268, 1277 (5th Cir. 1992). “The description of a policy
   or custom and its relationship to the underlying constitutional violation,
   moreover, cannot be conclusory; it must contain specific facts.” Spiller v.
   City of Texas City, Police Dep’t, 130 F.3d 162, 167 (5th Cir. 1997) (citing Fraire,
   957 F.2d at 1278).
            In jail suicide cases, federal law requires officers to “ha[ve] gained
   actual knowledge of the substantial risk of suicide and responded with delib-
   erate indifference.” Hare v. City of Corinth, 74 F.3d 633, 650 (5th Cir. 1996)
   (en banc). 6 To avoid liability, “[p]rison officials charged with deliberate in-
   difference might show . . . that they did not know of the underlying facts indi-
   cating a sufficiently substantial danger and that they were therefore unaware
   of a danger, or that they knew the underlying facts but believed (albeit
   unsoundly) that the risk to which the facts gave rise was insubstantial or
   nonexistent.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 844.
            Mere evidence that the official was “aware of a substantial risk to
   inmate safety does not alone establish deliberate indifference.” Hyatt v.
   Thomas, 843 F.3d 172, 177 (5th Cir. 2016). “[P]rison officials who actually
   knew of a substantial risk to inmate health or safety may be found free from
   liability if they responded reasonably to the risk, even if the harm ultimately

            6
             See also Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (holding that to be deliberately
   indifferent to an inmate’s needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment, “the official must
   both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of
   serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.”).

                                                 9
Case: 22-30248      Document: 00516641661           Page: 10   Date Filed: 02/10/2023

                                     No. 22-30248

   was not averted.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 844.
          Defendants aver, and the district court found, that Guillot did not
   adequately demonstrate the existence of an unconstitutional policy at OCC
   or provide proof of a de facto policy. Generally, Guillot does not challenge
   whether the OCC Suicide Prevention Policy is constitutional. Instead, she
   states that the Policy “seeks to avoid violations of constitutional rights, in-
   cluding protecting inmates from self-harm.” Although this policy may be
   constitutional, Guillot posits that OCC had an unconstitutional de facto policy
   of placing suicidal inmates on ʻheightened observation’ instead of suicide
   watch. Still, she does not allege sufficient facts to allow a reasonable fact-
   finder to hold that this was a de facto policy at OCC. And even if it was, the
   de facto policy does not have a causal link to Powell’s suicide.
          Similar to custom, a de facto policy is defined as a persistent wide-
   spread practice that, although not authorized by an officially adopted policy,
   is so common and well settled as to constitute a custom that fairly represents
   a municipal policy. See Webster v. City of Houston, 735 F. 2d 838, 842 (5th Cir.
   1984). “[I]solated acts” cannot establish the existence of a custom or prac-
   tice. Burge v. St. Tammany Parish, 336 F.3d 363, 370 (5th Cir. 2003). Instead,
   prior incidents “must have occurred for so long or so frequently that the
   course of conduct warrants the attribution to the governing body of knowl-
   edge that the objectional conduct is the expected, accepted practice.” Web-
   ster, 735 F.2d at 842.
          According to Guillot, the custom at OCC was to apply heightened
   observation, which has no written definition, to inmates exhibiting suicidal
   tendencies. She alleges that on February 18 and March 3, 2020, Powell exhib-
   ited such tendencies. Most concerningly, on February 18, he had asked for
   help, was withdrawn, had a blank stare, and had wrist abrasions, yet he was
   not sent to suicide watch and instead was placed under heightened obser-

                                          10
Case: 22-30248        Document: 00516641661               Page: 11        Date Filed: 02/10/2023

                                           No. 22-30248

   vation. Guillot maintains that it is a custom that allows deputies to shirk their
   responsibility to observe the inmates and meticulously log their observations.
   Under this deficient de facto policy, she claims Powell was denied his Eighth
   Amendment rights.
           Nevertheless, even taking all of Guillot’s factual assertions as accur-
   ate, she has not stated sufficient facts that indicate the alleged policy was a de
   facto policy. Moreover, she does not demonstrate that even if it was a de facto
   policy, that policy was the moving force behind the purported constitutional
   violation present here.
           This circuit has consistently rejected the notion that one-off actions
   constitute a policy. 7 Guillot has alleged only two violations, namely, the in-
   action by guards after Powell’s concerning acts on February 18 and March 3.
   Even taking at face value that Powell should have been moved to suicide
   watch both times, this does not prove a widespread custom of violating con-
   stitutional rights. These are one-off actions, and Guillot has not shown any
   other valid examples of persistent violations.
           Instead, she relies on an admission by the new warden of OCC, Paul
   Campbell, that there were multiple suicides in the facility over the past five
   years. Still, that is insufficient evidence to support her argument.
           First, Campbell corrected his statement, swore in an affidavit that it
   was a misstatement, and provided evidence that the last suicide at OCC was
   over a decade ago. Guillot has not rebutted the affidavit nor provided any
   legal argument indicating that we should reject the warden’s affidavit.
   Instead, she argues that it is implausible that the warden made a mistake in

           7
              See, e.g., Piotrowski v City of Hous., 237 F.3d 567, 581 (5th Cir. 2001); Bennett v.
   City of Slidell, 728 F.2d 762, 768 n.3 (5th Cir. 1984) (“Isolated violations are not the per-
   sistent, often repeated, constant violations that constitute custom and policy.”).

                                                 11
Case: 22-30248     Document: 00516641661           Page: 12     Date Filed: 02/10/2023

                                    No. 22-30248

   his original deposition.
          Guillot’s position is not convincing. And even assuming that Camp-
   bell’s original statement was true, there is no proof connecting the other
   unknown suicides to the alleged policy of applying heightened observation to
   suicidal inmates. So Guillot cannot prevail.
          After all, Powell had previously been moved to suicide watch twice
   before: Per their official procedures, OCC personnel had followed their
   constitutionally appropriate policies where an inmate presented signs of sui-
   cide. Generally speaking, a failure to follow prison policies, procedures, or
   regulations—without more—does not give rise to a constitutional violation.
   Hernandez v. Estelle, 788 F.2d 1154, 1158 (5th Cir. 1986).
          Moreover, Guillot has not alleged a plausible causal link between the
   alleged “policy” and Powell’s suicide. On March 13, there was no evidence
   that Powell exhibited suicidal tendencies that should have had deputies move
   him to suicide watch. On the contrary, defendants have averred that multiple
   deputies saw Powell that night and did not observe any of the suicidal
   tendencies listed in the official policy, nor any of the concerning behaviors
   presented on February 18 or March 3. Defendants have sworn that Powell
   did not appear to be in distress and did nothing to indicate that he would harm
   himself. One deputy spoke with Powell that night and complied with Powell’s
   requests. Guillot has not challenged any of these facts.
          Guillot also alleges that OCC failed to train its officers in implement-
   ing its suicide prevention and heightened observation policies. A munici-
   pality’s failure to train officers in appropriate procedures supports § 1983
   liability “only where the failure to train amounts to a deliberate indifference
   to the rights of persons with whom the [officers] come into contact.” City of
   Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 388 (1989). A city can be held liable in a
   failure-to-train suit only if there are “manifest signs” of suicidal tendencies.

                                         12
Case: 22-30248       Document: 00516641661              Page: 13       Date Filed: 02/10/2023

                                         No. 22-30248

   Whitt v. Stephens Cnty., 529 F.3d 278, 284 (5th Cir. 2008) (quoting Evans v.
   City of Marlin, 986 F.2d 104, 108 (5th Cir. 1993)). A “failure to train custodial
   officials in screening procedures to detect latent suicidal tendencies does not
   rise to the level of a constitutional violation.” Id. (quoting Evans, 986 F.2d
   at 107–08).
           Guillot has not presented proof that Powell exhibited manifest signs of
   suicidal tendencies when he committed suicide. Additionally, as demon-
   strated in the record, all the deputies on duty in Powell’s cell block were
   trained in suicide prevention strategies, save one shadowing another deputy.
   Therefore, there is no cognizable claim here.

                                               B.
           There is no genuine dispute of material fact to hold defendants Russell
   and Johnson legally responsible in their individual capacities under § 1983. It
   is improbable that Guillot sued the defendants in their individual capacities,
   and those claims should fail for procedural deficiencies. Assuming that she
   did so, she still cannot allege a genuine dispute as to any material fact to show
   that defendants acted with deliberate indifference.

                                               1.
           In Guillot’s complaint and amended complaint, it is unclear whether
   she intended to sue defendants in their individual capacity. Accordingly, in
   granting summary judgment, the court expressly stated that “[b]oth Russell
   and Johnson have been sued only in their official capacities.” 8
           Yet on appeal in her opening brief, Guillot did not even attempt to
   explain whether she had adequately pleaded individual-capacity claims. As

           8
             The court did analyze Guillot’s claims in the alternative, assuming that she ade-
   quately pleaded her individual capacity claims.

                                               13
Case: 22-30248        Document: 00516641661         Page: 14    Date Filed: 02/10/2023

                                     No. 22-30248

   discussed above, parties forfeit contentions by inadequately briefing them on
   appeal. Rollins, 8 F.4th at 397 n.1; see also Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A).
   Although Guillot attempts to respond to the district court in her reply brief,
   arguments raised for the first time in reply are generally forfeited. See Sahara
   Health Care, Inc. v. Azar, 975 F.3d 523, 528 n.5 (5th Cir. 2020).
          Even if the argument is not forfeited, Guillot did not adequately plead
   claims against the defendants in their individual capacities. She posits that
   the complaint and surrounding pleadings plainly indicate that claims were
   brought against the defendants in their individual capacities. That contention
   is not accurate.
          Concerning Russell, Guillot initially alleges claims against “Jay Rus-
   sell, in his official capacity as the elected Sheriff of Ouachita Parish.” Only
   later in the complaint does Guillot appears to plead individual-capacity
   claims against Russell, in one paragraph, by stating, “The Ouachita Correc-
   tional center was operated and supervised by Jay Russell at all relevant times.
   He is sued in his individual and in his official capacity for those acts and omis-
   sions, which occurred while he was Sheriff.”
          Then in the amended complaint, Guillot alleged claims against “Jay
   Russell, in his official capacity as Ouachita Parish Sheriff, Pat Johnson, War-
   den Ouachita Correctional Center, and John Doe, Ouachita Parish Sheriff’s
   Deputy.” Still, in the complaint regarding fictional defendant John Doe,
   Guillot pleaded claims against “John Doe, in his official capacity as a[n] Oua-
   chita Parish Sheriff’s Deputy and in his personal capacity.” This would indi-
   cate she was aware of the proper method of pleading individual-capacity
   theories.
          The claims against defendant Johnson are no more clear. Guillot
   first merely states,
          Pat Johnson, Warden of Ouachita Correctional Center, a per-

                                          14
Case: 22-30248        Document: 00516641661              Page: 15       Date Filed: 02/10/2023

                                          No. 22-30248

           son of the full age of majority holding the office of Warden of
           the Ouachita Correctional Center, domiciled and residing in
           the Parish of Ouachita, State of Louisiana. Pat Johnson is the
           responsible party for day to day operations of the Ouachita Cor-
           rectional Center.
   Additionally, in Guillot’s Memorandum in Opposition to defendants’
   Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings, she plainly stated, “Plaintiff
   does not seek to bring any individual capacity claims against either Sheriff Jay
   Russell or Warden Pat Johnson.” 9
           None of the above satisfies Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2),
   requiring that a plaintiff provide “a short and plain statement of the claim
   showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Although pleadings are to be
   construed to do justice, per Rule 8(e), Guillot has had numerous opportuni-
   ties to amend her complaint and clarify in what capacity she is attempting to
   sue these defendants.          Unfortunately, she has not taken any of those
   opportunities.

                                                2.
           Even if Guillot adequately pleaded her individual-capacity claims, she
   has not alleged a genuine dispute as to any material fact to hold defendants
   responsible under a supervisory-liability theory. 10 In the posture presented
   here, Guillot must establish that the defendants acted with deliberate indif-
   ference. See Flores v. Cnty. of Hardeman, 124 F.3d 736, 738–39 (5th Cir. 1997).

           9
             Later, after realizing that disclaimer would foreclose a significant number of her
   arguments, Guillot averred that she “hereby withdraws any previous representation made
   in briefing that [she] has not brought individual capacity claims, which was oversight on
   [her] part. [Her] Complaint very clearly asserts individual capacity claims and [she] main-
   tains these claims against both Sheriff Russell and Warden Johnson.”
           10
            Plaintiff has not alleged that either Russell or Johnson participated in or actively
   caused Powell’s death. Therefore, they can be liable only in their capacities as supervisors.

                                                15
Case: 22-30248        Document: 00516641661              Page: 16       Date Filed: 02/10/2023

                                          No. 22-30248

           A prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if “he knows
   that inmates face a substantial risk of serious bodily harm . . . [and] disregards
   that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it.” Hyatt, 843 F.3d
   at 179 (quoting Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 346 (5th Cir. 2006) (omission
   in original)). 11 An inmate must show 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 seri-
   ous medical needs.” Johnson v. Treen, 759 F.2d 1236, 1238 (5th Cir. 1985).
   “[N]egligent inaction by a jail officer does not violate the due process rights
   of a person lawfully held in custody of the State.” Sibley v. Lemaire, 184 F.3d
   481, 489 (5th Cir. 1999) (quoting Hare, 74 F.3d at 645). 12 This court has
   almost uniformly found deliberate indifference to be a “high standard.”
   Domino v. Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Just., 239 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir. 2001).
           Guillot has not stated sufficient facts to allow a trier of fact reasonably
   to find for her under the deliberate-indifference standard. Analyzing the facts
   in the best possible light for the plaintiff, Guillot can show that the defendants
   knew Powell had been suicidal in the past and should have been moved to
   suicide watch after the incidents on February 17 and March 3. But Guillot
   has shown no facts indicating that Powell exhibited signs of suicidal behavior
   on March 13. The most she can show is negligent inaction, not deliberate
   indifference, on the part of prison officials on and around February 17 and
   March 3. The officials would not have known that Powell was a substantial
   risk to himself on March 13 based on the facts presented about his behavior

           11
              See also Rhyne v. Henderson Cnty., 973 F.2d 386, 391 (5th Cir. 1992) (“The failure
   to provide pre-trial detainees with adequate protection from their known suicidal impulses
   is actionable under § 1983 as a violation of the detainee’s constitutional rights.”).
           12
             “Actions and decisions by officials that are merely inept, erroneous, ineffective,
   or negligent do not amount to deliberate indifference.” Frazier v. Keith, 707 F. App’x 823,
   824 (5th Cir. 2018) (per curiam).

                                                16
Case: 22-30248     Document: 00516641661            Page: 17    Date Filed: 02/10/2023

                                     No. 22-30248

   on that date.
          Hyatt is instructive on the deliberate indifference standard as applied
   to suicidal inmates. Police were called to do a welfare check on Jason Hyatt,
   whose wife told police he was suicidal. Hyatt was arrested under suspicion
   of driving while intoxicated. Hyatt, 843 F.3d at 175. During booking, Hyatt
   informed officers he was feeling “very depressed,” had been prescribed
   antidepressants, and had attempted suicide two months earlier, but answered
   that he was not “thinking about killing [himself] today” on the mental health
   form. Id. (alteration in original). The officer noted that Hyatt “came across
   as very happy and generally in a good mood,” and “[a]t no time did [she]
   consider him to be a suicide risk.” Id. at 175–76 (alteration in original). Hyatt
   was issued a regular jail uniform, but not a regulation sheet, and was put into
   a cell under video surveillance, only with a blind spot next to the toilet. Id.
   at 176. Previously, two inmates at that jail had used sheets to hang them-
   selves in their cells. Id. The following day, Hyatt hanged himself using a
   plastic garbage bag that had negligently been left in his cell. Id.
          We affirmed the summary judgment, noting that the officer’s “failure
   to inspect Hyatt’s cell and retrieve the plastic bag, and any other potential
   ligatures, was perhaps negligent.” Id. at 179 (citing Est. of Pollard v. Hood
   Cnty., Tex., 579 F. App’x 260, 266 (5th Cir. 2014) (per curiam)). Neverthe-
   less, “negligent inaction by a jail officer does not violate the due process
   rights of a person lawfully held in custody of the State.” Id. at 179–80 (quot-
   ing Hare, 74 F.3d at 645).
          Deliberate indifference requires more than a “mere oversight,” more
   than a mere mistake. Jacobs v. W. Feliciana Sheriff’s Dep’t, 228 F.3d 388, 395
   (5th Cir. 2000) (quotation omitted). Guillot, in fact, cites Jacobs as the best
   support for her deliberate-indifference theory. Her use of the case is not apt.
          In Jacobs, we examined whether summary judgment was proper where

                                          17
Case: 22-30248     Document: 00516641661           Page: 18    Date Filed: 02/10/2023

                                    No. 22-30248

   the sheriff was aware of a substantial risk of suicide and placed a pretrial
   detainee in an inadequately protective environment. 228 F.3d at 390. The
   court concluded that with those particular facts, the trier of fact could find
   that the sheriff acted with deliberate indifference. Id. at 395–96.
          There are some similarities with Jacobs present here. For example,
   the court found that the detainee had not given “indications that she was
   planning to attempt suicide or to harm herself” right before her suicide. Id.
   at 391. Nevertheless, the “record reveal[ed] that the defendants still regarded
   Jacobs as a suicide risk during that time. Indeed, [the sheriff ] testified that
   Jacobs was on a ʻprecautionary,’ though not a ʻstraight’ suicide watch.” Id.
          Still, there are significant differences that make Guillot’s claims
   noncomparable. First, less than four days had passed since obviously suicidal
   inclinations were expressed in Jacobs. Id. Looking at the evidence in the best
   light for the plaintiff, there was a minimum of ten days between suicidal
   expressions in the present case. Moreover, it is much more likely here that
   the last suicidal expression was several weeks before, in January.
          In Jacobs, the sheriff, despite having strong reason to believe that the
   detainee was presently suicidal, took patently unreasonable measures. For
   example, the sheriff placed the detainee in a cell where another inmate had
   committed suicide. The sheriff knew that the cell had tie-off points for sheets
   and makeshift ropes, which were strictly forbidden in a suicide-watch cell.
   Id. at 395–96. Moreover, while the detainee was on a “precautionary” sui-
   cide watch, as distinguished from a “strict” suicide watch, the sheriff also
   allowed the detainee to have a towel. Id. at 391. Those facts differentiate the
   case. Here a significantly longer time gap exists, OCC officials did not regard
   Powell as a suicide risk at the time he committed suicide, and, twice before,
   OCC moved Powell to an appropriate suicide cell when he presented suicidal
   tendencies.

                                         18
Case: 22-30248        Document: 00516641661                Page: 19        Date Filed: 02/10/2023

                                           No. 22-30248

           Numerous other cases undercut the notion of deliberate indifference
   here. For example, in Flores, a sheriff put an inmate “not acting like himself”
   under heightened observation for 12 hours. Flores, 124 F.3d at 737. At no time
   did the inmate express any “overt signs that he intended to commit suicide,”
   so staff gave him back his blanket. Id. He later hanged himself with the blan-
   ket. Id. Although the sheriff’s actions may have been “ill advised,” the
   inmate’s failure to indicate overt suicidality relieved the sheriff of any liability.
   Id. at 739. Indeed, in Jacobs, we summarized our holding in Flores as follows:
   “We found that the sheriff had not acted with subjective deliberate indif-
   ference because Flores did not give any indication of suicidal tendencies at
   the time he killed himself.” Jacobs, 228 F.3d at 396 (citing Flores, 124 F.3d
   at 738–39).
           Contemporaneity matters. 13             For example, in DeLoach v. Bryan,
   144 F. App’x 377, 378 (5th Cir. 2005) (per curiam), we found that prior men-
   tal health treatment and a previously written “suicide note” were too sepa-
   rated in time from the suicide. The more recent history of the inmate’s
   behavior, as related by the jail staff, was a better indication of his mental
   health at the time of his death. Id. at 378–79. Although failure properly to
   follow a suicide-prevention policy may amount to deliberate indifference, see
   Pollard, 579 F. App’x at 266, considering the facts, any noncompliance here

           13
                It is important to note that suicide watch imposes tremendous restraints on a
   prisoner’s activity, significantly changes the conditions of his confinement, and imposes a
   great amount of strain on a prison’s resources. Here, prisoners in suicide-watch cells have
   little interaction with others, have no personal possessions, are not permitted a blanket, and
   are under constant observation. As a result, placing an inmate under suicide watch is a
   decision not taken lightly, as officials must balance the danger the inmate poses to himself
   and others, the restraints on his activities, and the cost to the mental health resources of the
   prison. Ideally, inmates are not held under suicide watch indefinitely. The previous two
   times Powell was placed under suicide watch, he was released within a few days.

                                                 19
Case: 22-30248        Document: 00516641661              Page: 20       Date Filed: 02/10/2023

                                          No. 22-30248

   would be at most negligent. 14

                                                C.
           Guillot brings state law claims for negligence and vicarious liability. 15
   Under Louisiana law, a plaintiff must prove the following in order to be suc-
   cessful in a negligence claim: “(1) [T]he defendant had a duty to conform his
   conduct to a specific standard (the duty element); (2) the defendant failed to
   conform his conduct to the appropriate standard (the breach of duty ele-
   ment); (3) the defendant’s substandard conduct was a cause-in-fact of the
   plaintiff’s injuries (the cause-in-fact element); (4) the defendant’s substan-
   dard conduct was a legal cause of the plaintiff’s injuries (the scope of liability
   or scope of protection element); and, (5) actual damages (the damages ele-
   ment).” Roberts v. Benoit, 605 So. 2d 1032, 1051 (La. 1991). In short form,
   Louisiana law prescribes a typical duty/risk analysis. See Mart v. Hill,
   505 So. 2d 1120, 1122 (La. 1987).
           Prison officials must use reasonable care to protect inmates from
   harm, and this duty extends to self-inflicted injury. See Scott v. State, 618 So.
   2d 1053, 1059 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1993). No party disputes that this duty exists.
   In examining the duty/risk in a particular case, state law requires an “ease of
   association” between the injury/risk and the legal duty/rule of conduct. Todd
   v. State, 96-3090, p. 7 (La. 9/9/97), 699 So. 2d 35, 39. In prison suicide cases,
   this is a case-specific inquiry, see Scott, 618 So. 2d at 1059; Nagle v. Gusman,

           14
               Additionally, even if defendants can be sued in their individual capacities,
   qualified immunity would likely bar suit. Because Guillot failed sufficiently to plead delib-
   erate indifference, though, we see no need to continue the analysis.
           15 La. Civ. Code arts. 2315 (liability for acts causing damages), 2315.1 (survival
   action), 2315.2 (wrongful death action), 2316 (negligence, imprudence, or want of skill),
   2317 (acts of others and of things in custody), 2320 (acts of servants, students, or appren-
   tices), and 2324 (liability as solidary or joint and divisible obligation).

                                                20
Case: 22-30248     Document: 00516641661            Page: 21    Date Filed: 02/10/2023

                                     No. 22-30248

   61 F. Supp. 3d 609, 625 (E.D. La. 2014), which encompasses more than mere
   foreseeability if there is an ease of association, see Todd, 699 So. 2d at 39. But
   if no ease of association exists between the duty breached and the damages
   that occurred, there is no legal fault. Roberts, 605 So. 2d at 1045.
          Guillot presented evidence of the following facts, which we will con-
   sider true: First, Powell was depressed on February 18, 2020, and stated he
   needed help. A doctor indicated that Powell seemed withdrawn and delu-
   sional, was not communicating well, and had wrist abrasions. On March 3,
   Powell falsely reported being raped and asked to be alone in his cell. On both
   of those occasions, the OCC nurse recommended that Powell see a mental
   health professional. Powell did not see a mental health professional and was
   not placed on suicide watch on either occasion, violating prison policies, per
   Guillot. On March 13, Powell committed suicide after speaking with OCC
   officials that day, indicating frustration with his cellmate. Guillot primarily
   focuses on the events of February 18, on which, she alleges, Powell “was
   found with cuts on his wrist and asking for help.”
          Yet the analysis does not change. The district court pointed to two
   cases to support its contention that there was no liability even under Louisi-
   ana state law. Plaintiff is correct that the first, Misenheimer v. W. Baton Rouge
   Par. Sheriff’s Office, 95-2427 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/28/96), 677 So. 2d 159, where
   an inmate grabbed a deputy’s gun and shot himself, may not be entirely appo-
   site. First, the prison had no history with the inmate and no reason before-
   hand to believe he was suicidal. Id. at 161–62. His grabbing the gun suddenly
   was not foreseeable, and the trial court made this determination after a trial,
   not at the summary judgment stage. Id.
          But the second, Leonard v. Torres, is precisely on point. 2016-1484 (La.
   App. 1 Cir. 9/26/17), 2017 WL 4301898. A pretrial detainee hanged himself
   with his shoelaces, and his widow sued the sheriff and warden for failing to

                                          21
Case: 22-30248       Document: 00516641661              Page: 22      Date Filed: 02/10/2023

                                         No. 22-30248

   prevent the suicide and failure to train. Id. at *1. The court found for the
   defendants, noting that “to show that a duty arose on the part of the prison
   officials, the evidence must establish that the prison authorities either knew
   or should have known of an inmate’s suicidal tendencies.” Id. at *3.
           As analyzed before, officials did not have reason to believe that Powell
   was a suicide risk on March 13. He was not overly suicidal on that date and
   did not meet any OCC risk factors. Again, even if he had been suicidal on
   February 18 and March 3, that does not indicate OCC officials knew that he
   posed any risk of self-harm on March 13. As in Leonard, Powell did not vocal-
   ize any thoughts of suicide anywhere temporally near his suicide. Indeed,
   Guillot points to no case in Louisiana state courts where a court has ever
   accepted such a tenuous link for liability between a past mental health episode
   and an inmate suicide much later. Simply put, no ease of association exists
   here; defendants did not owe Powell a duty of care to place him on suicide
   watch on March 13, 2020. 16
           The summary judgment is AFFIRMED.

           16  Defendants bring other defenses, including that Guillot may not have appropri-
   ately raised her damages claims. Because she cannot prevail under the initial duty/risk
   analysis, it is not necessary to go further.

                                              22