Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determin ed that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 40383 S u m m ary C al en da r
G E O R G E H A R R YD AV IS , J R
. , P l a i n ti ff - A p p ell a n t v. U N I TE D STAT ES O F AM ER I CA ; RU D Y C H I LD RE SS, W ar de n; UNI DE NT I F I ED HOL L I F I EL D, F o o d S e r v i c e S u p e r v i s o r ; UNI VE RS I T YOF T E XA S M E D IC A L B R A N C H ; J W E L L S , M edi calA ssi st an tA dm i n i st rat or; AN I CETO DO M I N GU EZ, M
. D. ; UP D U PREE, Nur s e ; UP G I LDCR EST, N u r s e , D efen da n t s - A pp el l an t s

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e E aster n D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 1: 06- C V

- 85

B ef ore G A R Z A , C L E M E N T , an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * G eo r ge H ar r y D avi s, Jr
. , a f ede r alpr i so nerpr oc ee di ng pro sea nd i n f o r ma p a u p er is , app eal s t h e di sm i ssal of hi s Bi v e ns com pl ai n t
. For t h e reasons st ated bel ow , w e af

f i rm i n part, vacate i n part, an d rem an d f or f u rt h er proc eedi n gs. United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December

22, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 40383

Martinez v. Aaron , 5 7 0 F .2 d 3 1 7 (1 0 thC ir

. 1 9 7 8); see alsoC ayv . E stel le , 789 F.2 d 31 8, 1 323n .4 (5 th Cir. 1 986). B ecau se th e Martinez report was file d prior to Davi s’ s amended complaint, it respon ded o nlyto the all egatio ns c ontaine d inth e original c omplaint. 2 F A CT S A ND P ROC E E DI NGS D avi s i s a fede r alpri so neri ncar c er at ed i n B eaum ont , Texas
. O n M ay 25, 2 0 0 5 , w h il e w o rk in gin th e p riso n b a k e ry , D a v is su ffer e d a lac e ra tion on h is left fift h fin g e r . T h e in c id e n t r e s u lte d in a r u p t u r e d f le x o rte n d o n . T h e d a yo f h is i nj ur y, D av i s w as t r ans po r t e d t o a l o c alho s pi t alw he r e hi s i nj ur y w as s ut ur e d. D avi s eve nt ual l y under w ents urge r y o n June 20, 2005 att he U ni ver si t y o f Texas M e di c alBr anc h ho s pi t al(U TM B)

. H e w as pr o vi de d p ai n m e di c at i o n a nd a s pl i nt to s ta b iliz e th e inju r y . O n s e v e r a l o c c a s io n s in J u lya n d D e c e m b e r2 0 0 5 , D a v is
u n d e r w e n t p h y s ic a l th e r a p yw ith a p r is o n th e r a p is t. A f t er exha u st i n g ad m i n i st rat i ve rem edi es, D avis f i l ed a com pl ai n ton F ebru ary 15, 200 6 pu rsuan tt o Bi v e ns v. S ixUnkno w n Nam e d Age nt s of Fe de r al B u reau of

Narcot i cs , 403 U
. S

. 388 ( 197 1)

. H e al l eged tha tt h e defen da n t s’
c o n d u c t a m o u n te d to d e lib e r a te in d iffe r e n c e to h is s e r i o u s m e d ic a l n e e d s in vi ol ati on of

t h e E i gh t h A m en dm en t
. H e argu ed t h at del ays i n provi di n g surgery a n d th e r a p y r e s u lte d in in c r e a s e d p a in a n d p o te n tia llyp e r m a n e n t d a m a g e to h is l ef tha n d. O n S eptem ber 13, 200 6, pu rsuan tt o a courtorder, t h e U n i t ed S t ates A t t or ney’ s O f

f i c e f i l ed on behal f

of t he def endant s a Mart i n ezr e po r t r e s po ndi ng 1 t o t h e al l egati on s i n D avis ’ s c om pl ai n t
. O n O ct ober 12, 200 6, D avis f i l ed, an d on A u g u s t 2 3 , 2 0 0 7 , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t g r a n te d , D a v is ’ s m o tio n t o a m e n d h is
com pl ai n t
. H i s a m e n d e d co m p la in t a d d e d a cla im a g a in st A ss o cia te W arden K en E verha rtan d F ood-Servi ce C ook S u pervi sor R i cha rd P erry, al l egi n g t h at t h ey f orced hi m t o w ork beyon d h i s docum en t ed m edi calres t ri ct i on s. To h i s am en ded
c om pl ai nt , D avi s at t ac hed ex hi bi t s evi n ci ng hi s purs ui tof adm i ni st r at i ve
r e m e d ie s fo rth e fo r c e d w o r k cla im

.N o. 09- 40383

Davis also devotes a portionof his brief to wheth er defen dant s Dominguez , Dupre e, 2 and Gildcre st are e ntitled to aqu alified im m un itydefe nse. Qualifi ed i mmunity was not assertedbyany defen dant , nor was it a b asis for the district co urt’s ju dgment. This argu ment isth eref ore mi sp lace d. 3 T h e di st ri ctcourtconst rued t h e Mart i n ezreport as a m ot i on f or s u m m ary j u d gm en t, w h i ch i t gra n ted , dism i ssing the en ti retyof D a vis’ s ca se w i th p r ej ud i c e . Fi r s t , i td i s m i s s e d t he c l a i m s a g a i ns tt he Uni t e d St a t e s a nd UTM B
on soverei gn i m m u n i t y groun ds. Secon d, itd i sm i ssed W arden R u dy C h i l dress and M edi c alA ss i st ant A dm i ni st r at orJ. W el l s bec ause t hey l a ck ed pe r so nal i nvo l ve m e nti n Davi s ’ s m e di c alt r e at m e nt
. Thi r d, t he c o ur tc o nc l ude d t hatt he
c o nduc tD av i s c o m pl ai ne d o f di d no ta m o untt o de l ibe r at e i ndi f fe r e nc e und e rt he E i gh t h A m en dm en t
. F in a ll y , t h e courtrul ed that D avis ha d n otexh au st ed ad m i n i st rat i ve rem edi es on h is f orced w ork cl ai m an d d i sm i ssed t h e cl ai m on t hatb as i s . Davi s t i m e l y ap pe al e d. S TA NDARD OF RE VI EW W e rev i ew th e d is tr i ct cou rt’ s gra n t of su m m a ryj u d gm en t de no vo . Hernan d ez v. V

elasqu ez , 5 22 F. 3d 55 6, 56 0 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 8)

. Sum m ar y j udg m e nt i s a ppr o pr i at e i f

t he sub m i s s i o ns sho w t hat“ t he r e i s no g e nui ne i s s ue a s t o a ny
m a te r ia l fa c t a n d th a t t h e m o v a n t is e n tit le d to ju d g m e n t a s a m a t te ro f la w .” F ED R. C IV . P. 56 ( c )

. W he n de c i di ng w he t he ra fac ti s s ue e xi s t s , w e r e vi e w t he
e vi de nc e a nd t he i nfe r e nc e s dr awn f r o m i ti n t he l i ghtm o s tfav o r ab l e t o t he
n o n m o v in gp a r ty
. Hernan d ez , 5 2 2 F
. 3 d a t 5 6 0
. E ve n i f th i s cou rt disag ree s w i th t h e reaso ns g i ve n b y t he di s t r i c tc o ur t , i tm aya f f i r m a g r anto f

s um m ary j u dg m en ton an y groun ds sup ported by t h e rec ord an d p re sented t o t h e court b e lo w . I

d. DI S CU S S I ON D av i s m ak e s t hr e e m ai n ar gum e nt s on app e al

. Fi r s t , he a r gue s t hatt he 2 di st ri ctcourterr ed i n f i n di n g n o E i gh t h A m en dm en tv i ol ati on i n t h e defen da n t s’N o. 09- 40383

4 cond u ct
. Secon d, he argu es t h at t h e di sm i ssalof C h i l dress and W el l s f or l ack of p erso n a li n vo l ve m en t w a s erro n eo u s. F i n a l l y, D a vis co n ten d s th a t, con trary to t he d i s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s c o nc l us i o n, h e d i d n o tfa i lt o e x ha us th i s a d m i ni s t r a t i ve
r e m e d ie s fo rth e fo r c e d w o r k cla im p r e s e n te d in h is a m e n d e d co m p la in t. D a v is do e s no tc hal l e nge t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s dec i s i o n t o di s m i s s t he U ni t e d St at e s a nd U T M B o n s o v e r e ig n im m u n ity g r o u n d s . A
. D el i berat e I

n d if f ere n ce T h e di st ri ctcourtcon clu d e d tha tD avis rec ei ved adeq u ate m edi calcare an d, m o re o v er, t h at t h e al l eged del ays i n surgery an d therap y w ere not att ribu t able t o an y n am ed d efen da n t
. O n app eal , D avis att ribu t es h i s s u rgery d elay to U T M B ’ s “po l i ci es for su rg ery referra l s” an d the pr i son ’ s “secu ri ty p oli ci es” w i th ou t spe ci fic a l l eg a ti on of w ron gd oin g b y a n a m ed de fen d a n t. M ean w h i l e, hi s bri ef contai n s a concl u sory ass ert i on t h at defen da n t s C h i l dress and W el l s “ i gnor ed” h i s sc hedul ed t her apy appo i nt m ent s. Even i f t r ue, t hat al l egati on w ou l d be i n suff i ci en tt o s a ti sf

y t h e del iberate i n di f ference st an da rd be c aus e i tdo e s no te s t ab l i s h the requ i s i t e “ c ul pa bl e s t at e o f m i nd” o f

t he d e fe n d a n ts
. C al houn v. Harg r ov e , 312 F. 3d 7 30 , 7 34 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 2) ( “ To f i nd t hatan of

f i c i ali s del ibera te l y i ndi f fer ent , i tm ustbe pr ove n t hat‘ t he o f f i c i al know s of and di sr egar ds an exc es sive r i sk t o i nm at e he al t h ors afet y; t he o f f i c i al
m u st bo th be aw a re of fa cts f rom w h i ch the i n fer e n c e c o u l d be dr a w n tha t a
s u b s t a n t ia l ri s k o f s e r io u s h a r m e x is t s , a n d h e m u s t a ls o d r a w t h e in fe r e n c e .’” ( quot i ng Far m e rv . Br e nnan , 5 1 1 U .S . 8 2 5 , 8 3 7 (1 9 9 4 ))); se e a lso E a ste r v . Po w ell , 467 F
. 3d 4 59, 4 63 ( 5th C i r. 2 006 ) (r ecognizi n g a cl ai m f or del ayed m edi calcare, b u t o n lyw h e r e t h e d e lib e r a te in d iffe r e n c e o f p r is o n o ffic ia ls re s u lts in
s u b s ta n tia l h a r m ). D a vis’ s cl a i m i s esse n ti a l l y th a t t h e p rov i d ed treatm en t w a s i n a d eq u a te
o r ne gl i ge nt o r bo t h. Yet , as t hi s c o ur t has he l d, “ t he de c i s i o n whet he rt o pr o vi de ad di t i o nalt r e at m e nti s a c l as s i c e xa m pl e o f a m at t e rf

o rm e di c alj udg m e nt , ” a ndN o. 09- 40383

5 th u s n o t c o g n iz a b le u n d e rt h e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t. G o b er t v. Ca ld w ell , 463 F. 3d 3 3 9 , 3 4 6 (5th C i r. 2 0 0 6 ) (qu ota ti on om i tted). “ U n su cces sful m ed i ca ltreatm en t,
a cts of n e g lig e n ce, or m ed i ca lm a l p ra cti ce d o n ot con sti tu te d elib era te i n d i ff er e n c e , no r d oe s a p ri son er’ s d i sa gr ee m en t w i th h i s m ed i ca ltreatm en t,
a b sen t exce p ti on a lci rcu m stan ces.” I d. W e a gree w i t h t he di st r i c tc our tt hat D avis di d n otpresent a genu i n e i ssue of m ater i alfactt h at t h e defen da n t s w ere d elib era tel y in d i ff

ere n t t o se ri ou s m ed i ca ln ee d s w i th re sp ect to h i s trea tm en t. B. Lac k of

Pe r s o nalI

nv o l v e m e nt D avi s ar gues t hatt he di sm i ss alof C hi l dre ss and W el l s f orl ac k of

per so nal i nvol vem entw as er r oneo us bec ause t hos e def endant s r el i ed on e xt anthos pi t al and pri so n pol i c i es t hat c ause d del ays i n hi s t r eat m ent
. A n i ndi vi dualof f i c i al
m ay be h el d l i able “ on l y f or i m pl em en t i n g a poli cy t h at i s i t sel f [ ] a repu di ati on o f c o n s tit u tio n a l r ig h ts a n d th e m o v in gfo r c e o f th e co n s tit u tio n a l v io la tio n .” O live r v . S co tt , 276 F
. 3d 736 , 742 ( 5th C i r. 200 2) ( qu ot ati on om i t t ed). D avis does
n oti den t i f

y an y speci f

i c pol i cy al l eged l y rel i ed u pon by C h i l dress or W el l s. For t hatr eas on, the di st r i c tcour t ’ s di sm i ss alof thos e defendant s f

orl ac k of

per so nal in v o lv e m e n t w a s n o t im p r o p e r . C

. F o rc ed W o rk C la im D avi s ar gues t hat t he di st r i c tc our ter r ed i n di sm i ss i ng su a s p o n teh is f o r c e d wor k c l ai m due t o a fai l ur e t o e xha us ta dm i ni s t r at i ve rem edi es . The f orced w ork cl ai m is b ased on the al l eged con du ctof A ssoc i ate W arden E verha rt
a n d F o o d -S e r v ic e C o o k S u p e r v is o rP e r r yfr o m J a n u a r yto M a y2 0 0 6
. D a v is al l e ge d t hatPe r r y, und e rdi r e c t i o n f r o m Everhart , f

o r c e d hi m t o c o nt i nue w or ki ng i n t he f

oo d se r vi c e baker y i n vi ol at i on of doc um en ted m edi c al
r e s t r i c t i o ns w hi c h Davi s had pr o vi de d t o Pe r r y. Davi s a s s e r t e d t hatPe r r y’ s a nd E verha rt ’ s con du ctsu bj ect ed h i m to extrem e p ai n a n d suff eri n g i n vi ol ati on of th e E ig h th a n d F o u r te e n th A m e n d m e n ts
.N o. 09- 40383

As not edb yth e di strictc ourt , Jonesle f to p en the possibilityth at a c ase maybe 3 dismissed “for failure to state a clai m, predicate d onfailur e toexhau st, if the complaint itself makes cl ear that th e prison er faile d to exhau st.” Carb e , 49 2 F .3d at 328. The district co urt dismissed thec lai m onthis b asis, reasoning th at Davi s initiated a dmini strativegrievanc es after he file d th e original complaint. A review of the recor d, however , shows that Davis di d pursueadministrative re medies for the conduct underlyinghis forced work c la im prior to seekin g leaveto amend his co mplaint in October20 06. More over, hi s amen ded c omplaint all eges th at he did soan d inclu des documentation of his gri evanc es. Th e di strict court appears to h ave i gnored the filingof the amen ded c omplaint, and its c onclusi ont ha t“plaintiff c oul d not have exh auste d administrative remedie s with respect to incidents that took plac e after the lawsuitwa s f

il ed” wa s th eref

ore erro n eou s. 6 D avis presented this cl ai m i n an am en ded com pl ai n t , f i l ed by l eave of court on A u gu st23, 200 7. Th e di st ri ct c o u rt con cl u ded t h at D avis ha d n ot
e x h a u s t e d hi s a dm i ni s t r at i ve r e m e di e s a nd d i s m i s s e d su asp o n teh is for ce d w ork
c l ai m . I n Jon es v. B ock , t he Suprem e Courthel d “ t hatfai l ure t o e xhausti s an af f i rm ative defense u n der t h e [ P ri son L i t i gati on R ef orm A ct ] , an d that i n m ates
a r e n o t r e q u ir e d to s p e c ia llyp le a d o rd e m o n s tr a te e x h a u s t i o n in th e ir
c o m p la in ts .” 5 4 9 U .S . 1 9 9 , 2 1 6 (2 0 0 7 ); seealso C a rb e v . L a pp in , 492 F. 3d 325, 32 8 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 7) ( “Any fai l ur e t o e xha us tm us tb e a s s e r t e d b y t he def endant

. ” )

. The di st r i c tc our ter r ed by su asp o n ted i sm i ssi n g t h e f orced w ork 3 cl ai m for fa i l u re t o exh au st ; t h at di sm i ssalm u stbe vacated an d the case
rem an ded f

or f u rt h er proc eedi n gs.

CO NC L US I ON T h e ju d g m e n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t i s VA C A T E D in s o fa ra s it r e s u lte d in th e d is m is s a l o f D a v is ’ s fo r c e d w o r k cla im

. T h e ju d g m e n t is A F F IR M E D in a ll ot h er r espect s, an d the case i s R E M A N D E D f or f u rt h er proc eedi n gs.