IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-20389

Summary Calendar

CLIFTON L. CRUMBLISS,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

MICHAEL C. DARDEN; SARFO BONSU; KATHRENE GONZALES; K.

NEGBENEBOR; STEVE MASSIE,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:09-CV-3706

Before KING, JOLLY, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Clifton L. Crumbliss, Texas prisoner # 606721, filed a pro se civil rights

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officers Michael Darden and Sarfo

Bonsu, Lieutenant Kathrene Gonzales, Warden K. Negbenebor, and Regional

Director Steve Massie. Crumbliss alleged the following. He was wearing a halo

brace on his leg and was in a wheelchair when Darden and Bonsu transported

him to his brother’s funeral. Prior to leaving the prison unit, Darden and Bonsu

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 27, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 11-20389 Document: 00511801862 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/27/2012
No. 11-20389

realized that there were no tie-down straps in the wheelchair van with which to

secure Crumbliss’s chair, and Gonzales instructed the men to nevertheless

transport Crumbliss to the funeral. While in the vehicle, Crumbliss’s wheelchair

was jostled due to Darden’s driving, and Crumbliss struck and reinjured his leg. 

The district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and

dismissed with prejudice Crumbliss’s complaint alleging that the defendants had

shown deliberate indifference to his safety.

As an initial matter, Crumbliss has abandoned any challenge to the

district court’s determination that Crumbliss could not recover against

Negbenebor and Massie under a theory of respondeat superior and its

determination that Eleventh Amendment immunity precluded Crumbliss’s

recovery of monetary damages from the defendants in their official capacities. 

See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th

Cir. 1987). Therefore, the only issue on appeal is whether the district court

erred in granting summary judgment to the defendants on Crumbliss’s claim

that Darden, Bonsu, and Gonzales acted with deliberate indifference to

Crumbliss’s safety.

We review the grant of a motion for summary judgment de novo. Xtreme

Lashes, LLC v. Xtended Beauty, Inc., 576 F.3d 221, 226 (5th Cir. 2009). 

Summary judgment is appropriate if the records discloses “that there is no

genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment

as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a) (2010). To establish deliberate

indifference, the prisoner must show that the prison official knew of and

disregarded an excessive risk to inmate health or safety. Farmer v. Brennan,

511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). The prisoner must show both that the official was

aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk

of serious harm existed and that the official actually drew the inference. Id.

In opposing the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, Crumbliss

submitted a copy of a letter that purported to be from Darden, admitting that

2

Case: 11-20389 Document: 00511801862 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/27/2012
No. 11-20389

there were no straps in the van. Crumbliss maintains that the district court was

obliged to accept this document and consider it in determining whether

summary judgment was warranted. The district court’s memorandum opinion

indicates that it accepted as true the information contained in the document

presented by Crumbliss. Crumbliss has not pointed to any authority for the

proposition that Bonsu and Gonzales perpetrated a fraud upon the court by

submitting affidavits that flatly contradicted the admission in the letter from

Darden.

Relying on the discrepancies between Darden’s letter and the affidavits

from Bonsu and Gonzales, Crumbliss asserts that there was a genuine factual

dispute as to whether tie-down straps were available in the van used to

transport him to his brother’s funeral. The district court acknowledged this

factual dispute and concluded that it was not material to Crumbliss’s claim of

deliberate indifference. The district court assumed that there were no straps

and accepted as true Crumbliss’s allegation that Gonzales nevertheless

instructed Darden and Bonsu to transport Crumbliss. The district court

nevertheless concluded that the evidence did not demonstrate a subjective belief

on the part of the defendants that Crumbliss was being placed at substantial

risk of serious harm. “Deliberate indifference is an extremely high standard to

meet.” Brewster v. Dretke, 587 F.3d 764, 770 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation

marks and citation omitted). The summary judgment evidence here supports

the district court’s conclusion that the actions of Darden, Bonsu, and Gonzales

did not rise to this level. Accordingly, the district court’s grant of summary

judgment is AFFIRMED.

3

Case: 11-20389 Document: 00511801862 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/27/2012