Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-18-20704/USCOURTS-ca5-18-20704-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James E. Berry
Appellee
Gwendolyn Charvet
Appellee
James Coleman
Appellee
Toni Deer
Appellee
Jan A. Gustafson
Appellee
Frederick J. McCullough
Appellee
Joshua W. Parrish
Appellant
Betty Williams
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-20704

Summary Calendar

JOSHUA W. PARRISH,

Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.

JAMES E. BERRY, Lieutenant at Ellis Unit; FREDERICK J. 

MCCULLOUGH, Lieutenant at Ellis Unit; JAN A. GUSTAFSON, Lieutenant 

at Ellis Unit; TONI DEER; BETTY WILLIAMS; GWENDOLYN CHARVET; 

JAMES COLEMAN,

Defendants–Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:17-CV-2339

Before OWEN, Chief Judge, and SOUTHWICK and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Joshua W. Parrish, Texas prisoner # 1619201, filed a civil rights 

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging deliberate indifference to his 

serious medical needs and naming numerous employees of the Texas 

Department of Criminal Justice-Correctional Institutions Division (TDCJ-

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 9, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 18-20704 Document: 00515265391 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/09/2020
No. 18-20704

2

CID) and employees of the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) as 

defendants.

TDCJ-CID employees Lt. James E. Berry, Lt. Frederick J. McCullough, 

and Lt. Jan A. Gustafson moved to dismiss Parrish’s complaint against them 

as unexhausted under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). UTMB employees, Physician 

Assistant (PA) Toni Deer, Dr. Betty Williams, nurse Gwendolyn Charvet, and 

Dr. James Coleman moved for summary judgment. The motion sought 

dismissal of the claims against Charvet, Coleman, and Williams for failure to 

exhaust and summary judgment in favor of Deer because Parrish had not 

alleged that she had been deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. 

The district court concluded that only the claim against Deer had been 

administratively exhausted and dismissed the claims against the other 

defendants. The district court then concluded that Parrish had failed to allege 

a constitutional claim against Deer. Parrish appeals.

“We review a summary judgment de novo, applying the same legal 

standards as the district court.”1 A prisoner who wishes to file a § 1983 suit 

for damages against prison officials must exhaust administrative remedies 

before doing so.2 As Parrish did not pursue a grievance through the Texas 

prison system regarding any of his allegations except his allegations against 

Deer, he failed to satisfy the exhaustion requirement with respect to all his 

claims against the other defendants.3 The district court did not err by 

dismissing the claims against all the defendants except Deer.4

 

1 Prospect Capital Corp. v. Mut. of Omaha Bank, 819 F.3d 754, 756-57 (5th Cir. 2016)

(citing Hemphill v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 805 F.3d 535, 538 (5th Cir.2015)); see also

Mississippi River Basin All. v. Westphal, 230 F.3d 170, 174 (5th Cir. 2000) (citing FED. R.

CIV. P. 56).

2 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). 3 See Johnson v. Johnson, 385 F.3d 503, 515, 522-23 (5th Cir. 2004). 4 See Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 202-03 (2007).

Case: 18-20704 Document: 00515265391 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/09/2020
No. 18-20704

3

To state a claim under the Eighth Amendment against Deer, Parrish 

must have alleged facts to show “deliberate indifference to [his] serious medical 

needs, constituting an ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.’”5 “Medical 

records of sick calls, examinations, diagnoses, and medications may rebut an 

inmate’s allegations of deliberate indifference.”6 As the district court

concluded, Parrish’s disagreement with Deer’s medical conclusion does not 

support a claim of a constitutional violation.7

AFFIRMED.

 

5 Easter v. Powell, 467 F.3d 459, 463 (5th Cir. 2006) (quoting Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 

294, 297 (1991)).

6 Banuelos v. McFarland, 41 F.3d 232, 235 (5th Cir. 1995) (citing Mendoza v. Lynaugh, 

989 F.2d 191, 193-95 (5th Cir.1993)).

7 See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837-40 (1994); Arenas v. Calhoun, 922 F.3d 

616, 620 (5th Cir. 2019) (quoting Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 346 (5th Cir. 2006)); 

Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991).

Case: 18-20704 Document: 00515265391 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/09/2020