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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-20766

Summary Calendar

 

TIMOTHY RAY DRIVER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

WAYNE SCOTT; ROCHELLE MCKINNEY; KENT RAMSEY;

PRISCILLA DALY; MARSHALL HERKLOTZ; T. GARCIA;

CAPTAIN BELL; D. DRECKT; E. FOX; F. CHERIAN;

V. PORTER; J. AGULAR; OFFICER SIMMONS,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-96-CV-1895

- - - - - - - - - -

November 13, 1998

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Timothy Ray Driver, a Texas prisoner (# 663510), appeals

the district court’s dismissal of his pro se, in forma pauperis

civil rights action, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Driver’s motion for leave to supplement his brief is GRANTED.

Driver has abandoned the following issues, which he raised

in the district court, by failing to assert these claims in this
No. 97-20766

-2-

court: (1) that the defendants failed to provide adequate medical

treatment; (2) that the defendants retaliated against him;

(3) that the defendants assigned him to work in the sun in

contravention of his medical restrictions; and (4) that the

defendants confined him in a cell where he was exposed to extreme

temperatures in contravention of his medical restrictions. See

Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744,

748 (5th Cir. 1987)(issues not asserted on appeal are abandoned).

Driver contends that the defendants violated his rights to

due process by failing to afford him a full 24-hour period prior

to the hearing on his disciplinary charges. Driver also contends

that he should not have been found guilty of the charges. This

court “will not review the sufficiency of the evidence at a

[prison] disciplinary hearing; a finding of guilt requires only

the support of `some facts' or `any evidence at all.'" Gibbs v.

King, 779 F.2d 1040, 1044 (5th Cir. 1986)(citations omitted). 

The record demonstrates support for the finding of guilt. Driver

has not shown the violation of a constitutional right. See

Allison v. Kyle, 66 F.3d 71, 73 (5th Cir. 1995). Due process

requires that the notice be sufficient to inform the inmate of

the charges and “to enable him to marshal the facts and prepare a

defense." Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 564 (1974). The

record shows that Driver was given sufficient notice, and Driver

has not identified the evidence he was unable to produce for the

hearing. In Sandin v. Conner, 115 S. Ct. 2293, 2300 (1995), the

Supreme Court reaffirmed that the focus of a due process analysis
No. 97-20766

-3-

should be the nature of the prisoner's right that has been

affected. Driver has not shown that his disciplinary proceedings

implicated the kind of liberty interest described in Sandin. The

district court’s decision on Driver’s due process claim is

AFFIRMED.

Driver, who is a below-the-knee amputee, contends that the

prison lacked sufficient accommodations for his condition. 

Driver asserts that the shower did not have handrails, that the

metal shower floor became slippery, and that he had to hop the

step to enter or exit the shower. Driver contends that he was

required to walk a 1/4-mile circular path to reach the

commissary, shower, cafeteria, or infirmary. Driver asserts that

he slipped in the shower and that he was unable to walk the

required distance without aggravating his condition.

 The Eighth Amendment’s provision against cruel and unusual

punishment “imposes minimum requirements on prison officials in

the treatment received by and facilities available to prisoners.” 

Woods v. Edwards, 51 F.3d 577, 581 (5th Cir. 1995)(citation and

footnote omitted). The Amendment creates a duty for prison

officials to provide “humane conditions of confinement.” Id. at

581 n.10. 

The district court did not address Driver’s claims related

to the conditions of his confinement separately from the claims

based on his receipt of medical treatment. Accordingly, we

VACATE the district court’s decision in part, and REMAND for

further proceedings in connection with Driver’s claims that

requiring him to walk long distances and to shower in a facility
No. 97-20766

-4-

that was not equipped for his condition violated his rights under

the Eighth Amendment.

Driver contends that the defendants acted with deliberate

indifference to his condition by assigning him to work a job that

required him to walk 300 to 400 yards, four times per day. 

Driver contends also that the defendants refused to enforce the

medical restriction that permitted him to walk the shortest route

to his destination.

Prison work requirements which compel inmates to perform physical labor which is

beyond their strength, endanger their lives, or cause undue pain may constitute cruel and unusual

punishment. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). The “constitutionality

of a particular working condition must be evaluated in the light of the particular medical

conditions of the complaining prisoner." Jackson v. Cain, 864 F.2d 1235, 1246 (5th Cir. 1989).

The district court did not address these claims separate

from the retaliation and due process issues that Driver raised. 

Accordingly, we VACATE the district court’s decision in part, and

REMAND for further proceedings in connection with Driver’s claims

that the work assignments violated his constitutional rights.

MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT BRIEF GRANTED; AFFIRMED IN PART;

VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART.