Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-20214/USCOURTS-ca5-03-20214-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Melvin Brock
Appellee
Anthony F. Houston
Appellant
Walter Long
Appellee
Rochelle McKinney
Appellee
William H. Reinkins
Appellee
James R. Zeller
Appellee

Document Text:

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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

March 17, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-20214

Summary Calendar

 

ANTHONY F. HOUSTON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JAMES R. ZELLER; MELVIN BROCK; WALTER LONG, Doctor;

WILLIAM H. REINKINS; ROCHELLE MCKINNEY,

Defendants-Appellees.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-00-CV-3461

--------------------

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Anthony F. Houston, Texas prisoner # 719384, appeals the

dismissal on summary judgment of his civil rights complaint filed

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Houston argues that prison

officials and medical care providers at the Ferguson Unit of the

Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) violated the Eighth

Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment by

showing deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. 

 Case: 03-20214 Document: 0051631504 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/17/2004
No. 03-20214

-2-

Houston alleges that the medical providers Dr. Walter Long

and William H. Reinkins withheld needed medications from him and

failed to restrict his prison work assignments; however, Long and

Reinkins were never served with the complaint and have not

appeared in the suit. Houston also named as defendants the head

warden James R. Zeller, the assistant warden Melvin Brock, and

Rochelle McKinney, the TDCJ’s regional medical administrator

(collectively, the defendants), asserting that these supervisory

prison officials refused to take proper action on his grievances

to remedy the constitutional violations. Houston seeks

injunctive and monetary relief.

Houston’s claims against the defendants in their official

capacities fail as a matter of law because a state official sued

in his or her official capacity is not a “person” who can be sued

for purposes of liability under § 1983. See Will v. Michigan

Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). 

Houston has not shown that the defendants or his medical

providers “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 [his]

serious medical needs.” See Domino v. Texas Dep’t of Criminal

Justice, 239 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation

marks and citation omitted). At most, Houston has established

that he disagreed with the prison physician’s choice of

medications for him and the physician’s judgment that he was not

 Case: 03-20214 Document: 0051631504 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/17/2004
No. 03-20214

-3-

restricted medically as to job assignments; such disagreements

cannot support a claim of cruel and unusual punishment. See

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

Thus, Houston’s claims against the defendants in their

individual capacities and for injunctive relief, while cognizable

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, also fail because Houston has not shown

that there exists any genuine issue of material fact regarding

whether the defendants either were personally involved in any

constitutional violation or whether there was a causal connection

between the defendants’ conduct and any constitutional violation. 

See Thompkins v. Belt, 828 F.2d 298, 304 (5th Cir. 1987). 

Consequently, the district court’s dismissal of Houston’s

complaint is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 03-20214 Document: 0051631504 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/17/2004