Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinion should not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited 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- 10404 Su m m ar y Cal endar

JOH N D

. FAI LS, a l s o kno w n a s J o hn Dani e lFail s , J r . , a l s o kno w n a s J o hn D F a ils , J r ., P l a i n ti ff - A p p ell a n t v. D E N IS E D E S H IE L D S , M ed i ca lD i rector , T ex a s T ech U n ive rsit y H ea l th S c i e n c e Ce n t e rI n d iv i d u a l l ya n di n T h e i rOf f i c i a lCa p a c i t y ; BRA D L IV IN G S T O N , E xecutive D i rect or, T exas D epa rt m en tof C ri m i n alJu st i ce, I ndivi dua l l y andi n The i rO f f i c i alCapa c i t y; RI SSI E O W EN S, Chai r pe r s o n, Texas B oar d of

Pardo ns and Paro l es I ndivi dual l y and i n T hei rO f f i c i al C a p a c ity ; G E R A L D D AV IS , A s s is ta n t W a r d e n , In d iv id u a llya n din T h e ir O f f i c i alC apac i t y, D efen da n t s - A pp el l ees

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i tedS tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or t h e N ort h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 2: 08- C V

- 88

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 IA M: * United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 22, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 10404

2 J o h n D . F a ils , pro se , appeal s t he di st r i c tc our t ’ s d i sm i ss alof hi s § 1 983
c o m pl ai nta l l e gi ng de l ibe r at e i ndif fe r e nc e t o s e r i o us m e di c alne e ds

. Fo rt he f o l l o wi n gr e a s o n s , we AF FI RM

. F A CT S A ND P ROC E E DI NGS Fai l s, pr oc ee di ng in for m ap a u p er is , br oughts ui taf t erhe s uf

fer ed s eve r al kn e e inj u ri es w h i l e i n carcer ated at a T exas D epa rt m en tof C ri m i n alJu st i ce ( “ TD C J” ) pr i so n i n A m ar i l l o, Texas

. The or i gi nalc om pl ai ntnam ed as d efen d a n ts D en i se D eS h i elds, t h e m ed i ca ldirector o f th e T ex a s T ech U n ive rsit y H e al t h Sci e nc e C e nt e r ; B r adL ivi ngs t o n, t he e xe c ut ive dir e c t o ro f t he TD CJ; a nd Ri s s i e O w e ns , t he c hair w o m an o f t he Te xa s Boa r d o f

Par do ns a nd Pa r o l e s . The
a m e n d e dco m p la in t a d d e dG e r a ldD a v is , a n a s s is ta n t w a r d e n a t t h e A m a r illo pr i s o n, a s ade fe nda nt
. Thro ugh4 2 U

. S. C. § 1 98 3, Fail s a l l e ge s t hatt he defenda n t s vi ol ated th e E i gh thA m en d m e n t b yd isp la y in gd e lib e ra t e i n di f f erence to h is s e r io u s m e d ic a l n e e d s . F ai l s w a s un sati sf

i ed w i t h t h e m edi calcare h e rec eived af t er he sl i pp ed
w hi l e g e t t i ng o uto f t he s ho w e ra nd i nj ur e d hi s l e f tkne e . Ac c o r di ng t o t he
ac c ounti n t he am en ded c om pl ai ntand t he gr i evanc es at t ac hed t o t he o r i gi nal
com pl ai n t , w h i ch i n cl u de the pri son’s r e sp on se t o hi s gri evan ces, F ai l s vi si t ed t he uni tphys i c i an t he m o r ni ng af t e rhi s i nj ur y. The phy s i c i an t o l d Fa i l s , w ho i s di ab e t i c , t hathi s knee w as t o o s w o l l e n t o b e e xa m i ne d e f fe c t ive l y andt hathe sh ou l dretu rn f

or a foll ow -up a p p oin tm en t. T h e d octor a l so p rov i d ed h i m w i th
c r ut c he s a nd ibup r o fe n, b o t h o f w hi c h Fail s r e f

us e d— t he c r ut c he s b ecau se he
c l ai m e d t he y w e r e t o o s ho r t , a nd t he m e di c i ne be c aus e he i s o ppo s e d t o t ak i ng
m o s tm e di c at i o ns . Fa i l s w as s e e n as e c o nd t i m e s e ve r alda ys a f t e rs c he dul i ng a f ol l ow - u p ap poi n t m en t
. Th e d oct or or dered x-r ays of F ai l s’ s kn ee an d, af

t er a sub sequ en teval u ati on , a k n e e brace. A ta l atereval u ati on , F ai l s di d n ot
c o m p la in a b o u t h is k n e e , b u t w a s p r e s c r ib e da r c h s u p p o r ts fo rh is fe e t.N o. 09- 10404

The amen ded complaint contains a conclusoryallegation that Gerald Davi s failed to 1 ensure that Fails’s living conditions did not cau se furtherdamageto hi s knee . For the reasons stated below, Fails failed to plea d a cogniz able Ei ghth Amen dment violation again s tany n a me d defe n dant, inclu din gDavis

. Th e di strictcourtcorrectlydis mi ssedt he suita gain st Davi s as frivolou s an d for failure to state acl aim; we note, however, th at Fails also neglecte d to exhau st his administrative remedie s as to any claim again st Davi s related to hi skn ee in j uries . 4 2U .S .C

. § 1 9 9 7 e(a). 3 S u b s e q u e n tly , F a ils h a ds e v e r a l a c c id e n ts in w h ic h h is k n e e “g a v e o u t.” T h e m ed i ca lde p a rtm en t ord ere dtw o k n ee x-ray s, on e pelvic x-ra y, a n dan M R I. T h e M R I resul t s s h ow ed that Fa i l s had previ ou sl y u n dergon e kn ee surgery f or a pre- exi st i n g inju ry, an d that hi s kn ee ha d si n ce dem on st rat ed “m i n or de ge ne r at ive c hang e s . ” The t r e at i ng o f f i c i alt o l d Fa i l s t hathi s kne e probl em
w o u lds ta b iliz e o v e rtim e a n dp r e s c r ib e dcr u tc h e s . In 2 0 0 7 , F a ils inju r e dh is
r igh t k n ee . A n orth op ed i c sp eciali st tol d h i m th a t su rg ery w ou l d n ot cu r e h is kn ee probl em s. Fa i l s exha u st ed h i s ad m i n i st rat ive rem edi es by f i l i n g t h e proper g r ie v a n c e s , w h ic h h e a tt a c h e dto h is co m p la in t. In O c to b e r20 0 7 , F a i l s sen t a settl em en t of fer t o D eS h i elds. F a i l s w rote
s im ila rle tt e r s to L iv in g s to n a n dO w e n s in M a r c h 2 0 0 8
. T h e le tt e r s a r e th e o n ly t h i n gs t h at c on n ectD eS h i el ds, L ivi n gst on , an d O w en s t o F ai l s’ s al l egati on s. 1 The m ag i s t r at e j udg e ’ s r e po r t and r e c o m m e nda t i o n s ugg e s t e d d i s m i s s i ng Fai l s’ s sui tw i t houtpr ej udi c e f or fail ure t o s t at e ac l ai m and w i t h prej udi c e a s f r ivol ous . The m agi st r at e j udge r eas oned t hatthe pr i so n of f i c i al s’ s c onduct , as d et ai l ed i n hi s c om pl ai nt s and t he at t ac hed gr i evanc es , di d not am ou n t t o de l ibe r at e i ndif

fe r e nc e a nd t hatt he s ui tw as f ri vol o us . Ove rFail s ’ s o bj e c t i o n, th e d is tr ic t c o u r t a d o p te dth e r e p o r t a n dre c o m m e n d a tio n . N o tin gth a t F a ils d id
n ot n a m e a n y o f h i s m e d i ca lcare give rs a s d efen d a n ts, i t dism i sse dthe su i t. F ai l s app eal s. S TA NDARD OF RE VI EW C ivi lri gh t s c om pl ai n t s f i l ed byp ri soners sh ou l d be di sm i ssed if t h ey are “fr iv o lo u s , m a lic io u s , o rfa il[] to s ta te acla im u p o n w h ic h re lie f m a yb e g r a n te d .”N o. 09- 10404

4 28 U

. S. C

. § 1915A (b) ( 1)

. Th i s c our trev i ew s a di st r i c tcour t ’ s § 1915Adi sm i ss al de no vo . H u tch in s v . McD a n iels , 512 F

. 3d 193 , 195 ( 5th C i r. 200 7) (ci t ati on om i t t ed). D i st ri ctcourt s m ay als o di sm i ss, a s f rivol ou s, com pl ai n t s of pri soners pro c ee di ng in for m ap a u p er is w h en the y lack an arg u a b l e b a sis i n l a w or fact. 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (e )(2 )(B )(i); H ut c hi ns , 512 F

. 3d at 195 (ci t ati on om i t t ed). Su ch d is m is s a ls a r e r e v ie w e d fo r a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . G eiger v. Jow ers , 404 F. 3d 371, 3 7 3 (5th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) (ci tati on o m i tted). B eca u se th e m a gistrate jud ge referred to bot h § 19 15Aand § 1915( e) w hen i tr ec om m ended di sm i ss i ng t he s ui tas f r iv o lo u s , th e co u r t w ill re v ie w th e is s u e s ra is e do n a p p e a l de no vo . V elasqu ez v . W o o ds , 3 2 9 F .3d 4 2 0 , 4 2 1 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 3 ). T o st ate a c l ai m up on w h i ch rel i ef m ay be gran t ed, “th e p la i n t i f f m u st p l ea de n ou gh fac ts to state a claim to reli ef th a t is p l a u sibl e on i ts fa ce.” S ee In
r eK at r i na CanalB r e ache s Li t ig. , 495 F.3d 191, 205 ( 5t h C i r . 2007) (i nt er nal quo t at i o ns a nd c i t at i o n o m i t t e d)

. “ [A] pl ai nt i f f ’ s o bl i ga t i o n t o pr o vi de t he

‘ gr o unds ’o f

hi s ‘ en t i t l e [ m e nt] t o r e l i e f ’r e quir e s m o r e t han l ab e l s a nd
c o n c lu s io n s , a n d a fo r m u la ic r e c ita tio n o f th e e le m e n ts o f a ca u s e o f a c tio n w ill
n ot d o.” B ell A tl. Co rp . v . Tw o m b ly , 550 U

. S. 544 , 5 55 ( 20 07 ) (i nt e r nalc i t at i o ns om i t t ed). I n ef

fect , “ [f ] act u alal l egati on s m u stb e en ou gh t o rai se a r i gh tt o rel i ef
a b ov e th e sp ecu l a tive l ev el. ” I d. ; s e eals o As hc r of

tv . I qb al , 129 S. C t
. 1937, 1949- 5 0 (2 0 0 9 ). DI S CU S S I ON Aplain ti ff

m u st m ee t a n “ex trem ely h i gh ” st a n d a rdto sh ow de l ib era te in d iffe r e n c e t o a s e r io u s m e d ic a l n e e du n d e rth e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t. G obe r tv. Ca ld w ell , 463 F

. 3d 339 , 346 ( 5th C i r. 200 6) ( qu ot ati on s om i t t ed). For a pri son o f f i c i alt o b e l i ab l e f

o rde l ibe r at e i ndif

fe r e nc e , t he pl ai nt i f

f m us tsho w t hat“ t he
o f f i c i alkno w s o f

a nd d i s r e ga r ds a n e xc e s s ive r i s k t o i nm at e he al t h o rs af e t y; t he of f i c i alm ustbo t h be a w ar e o f fac t s f r om w hi c h t he i nfer enc e c oul d be dra w n t hatN o. 09- 10404

5 a s u b s ta n tia l ris k o f s e r io u s h a r m e x is ts , a n dh e m u s t a ls o d r a w th e in fe r e n c e .” Far m e rv . Br e nnan , 5 1 1 U .S . 8 2 5 , 8 3 7 (1 9 9 4 ). D el iber at e i ndi f

f er enc e i s es pec i a l l y h a rd t o s how w hen t he i nm at e w as p rov i d ed w i th on go i n g m ed i ca ltreatm en t. “U n su cces sful m e d ic a ltreatm en t,
a cts of n eg l i ge n ce, or m ed i ca lm a l p ra cti ce d o n o t con sti tu te d elib era te i n d i ff ere n ce, n o rd o es a pr i 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 ex cep ti on a l ci rcu m stan ces.” G obert , 4 6 3 F .3d a t 3 4 6 (cita tion s o m itted ). C om pl ai n t s t h at m ore t reat m en tshou l d h ave been ordered, w i t h ou tm ore, are i ns uf f i c i e nt t o s ho w de l ibe r at e i ndif fe r e nc e : “ t he de c i s i o n w he t he r t o pr o vi de
a d d itio n a l tr e a tm e n t is acla s s i c e x a m p le o f a m a tt e rfo rm e d ic a l ju d g m e n t.” D om i n o v. T

exas D ep’

tof C ri m . Ju st i ce , 239 F. 3d 752, 7 5 6 (5th C i r . 2001) (in te r n a l q u o ta tio n o m itt e d ). From t he fac e o f Fai l s’ s c om pl ai nt and am ended c om pl ai nt , i t i s c l eart hat h e w a s s e e n w h e n h e r e q u e s t e d t r e a t m e n t a n dth a tth e d o c t o r s a n dp h y s ic ia n ’s assi st an t s w h o saw hi m att em pted t o provi de severalrem edi es f or hi s kn ee probl em s. A tno ti m e w ere t h ey del iberately i n di f ferent t o hi s m edi calneed s. T h e yp r o v i d e dh im w ith k n e e b r a c e s , p e r fo r m e da n M R I, a n do ffe r e dh im pa i n kill ers, am on g ot h er at t em pted rem edi es, f or a pre- exi st i n g kn ee condit i on th a t w a s a g g r a v a te db ya s e r ie s o f a c c id e n ts
. F a ils ’ s d is s a tis fa c tio n w ith th e ir
e ffo r ts d o e s n o t s u ffic e to cr e a te aco n s tit u tio n a l v io la tio n . F a ils d idn o t a lle g e th a t p r is o n o ffic ia ls “r e fu s e dto tr e a t h im , ig n o r e dh is
c om pl ai nt s , i nt e nt i o na l l yt r e a t e dh i m i nc o r r e c t l y , o re ng a g e di n a nys i m i l ar c onductt hatw oul d c l ear l y e vi nce a w an ton d i sr egar d f orany s er i ous m edi c al
n ee d s. ” D o m i no , 239 F. 3d at 756 (i nt er nalqu ot at i on om i t t ed)

. N ordi d h e a l l ege a n y a ct t h a t evin ces “ob d u ra cyan dw a n ton n ess , ” B r a d ley v . P u ck ett , 157 F. 3d 1 0 2 2 , 1 0 2 5 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) (q u o t a t i o n o m itt e d ), o rth a t r is e s a b o v e s im p le
n e g lig e n c e , se e L a w so n v. D a lla s Co u n ty , 286 F. 3d 25 7 , 2 6 2 -63 ( 5t h C i r . 2002) ( “ D el iberate i n di f

ference cann otbe i n ferred fr om a p ri son of f i ci al ’ s m ere fai l u reN o. 09- 10404

6 t o actreasonab l y, i

. e. , i tcann otbe i n ferred fro m n egl i gen ce al on e. ” (ci t ati on om i t t ed))

. A dd i t i on al l y, i ti s c l ear tha tthe defenda n t s F ai l s n am ed took no p art i n hi s m edi calt reat m en t ; even i f a const i t u t i on alvi o la tion h ad occ u rred, t h ey c oul d nothave bee n l i abl e f ori tunder a resp o n d ea t superi orth e o r y . See, e . g. , Bush v . Vi t e r na , 795 F. 2d 1203, 1206 ( 5t h C i r . 19 86) (c i t i ng Mon el lv. D ep’ tof S oc. S ervs . , 4 3 6 U .S . 6 5 8 , 6 9 0 -9 5 (1 9 7 8 )). O n t h ese fact s, t h e di st ri ctcourtproperl y di sm i ssed w i t h ou tprej u di ce F ai l s’ s c om pl ai n tpu rsuan tto 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 191 5Aforfai l u re to st ate a c l ai m up on
w hi c h re l i ef

can be gr ant ed. I t s di sm i ss alw i t h prej udi c e f orf r ivol ous nes s w as a ls o co r r e c t. Ap r is o n e r ’ s co m p la in t is f r iv o lo u s if

itla c k s a n a r g u a b le b a s is in la w o rfa c t. Se eBe r r y v . Br ady , 192 F

. 3d 504 , 507 ( 5th C i r. 199 9)

. Fa i l s’ s c ase di d n ot fal t er sol el y becau se h e n am ed t h e w rong p art i es. Th e fact s as r ecoun t ed i n t he c o m pl ai nta nd it s a t t ac he d m at e r i al s , a s w e l la s t he a m e nde d c o m pl ai nt th e cou rt all ow ed F a i l s to f i l e, cou l dn ot su p p ort l i a b i l i ty for an E i gh th A m endm entvi ol at i on. The di st r i c tc our tpr ope r l y di sm i ss ed t he case as f rivol ou s. CO NC L US I ON T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s d i s mi s s a lo f F a i l s ’ s c o mp l a i n ti s A F F I RMED.