### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-20389 Summary Calendar

CLIFTON L. CRUMBLISS, Plaintiff-Appellant

v. MICHAEL C. DARDEN; SARFO BONSU; K ATHRENE 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 priso n e r # 6 0 6 721, filed a pro se civil rights comp l a i n t 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 U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D March 27 , 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t hasd ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-20389 Document: 00511801862 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/27/2012No. 11-20389

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

secure Crumbliss’s chair, and Gonzales i n s t r u c ted the men to nevertheless transport C ru mb li ss 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 distric t court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and di s mi s s e d with p re

j u dic e C ru mb li s s’s complaint alleging that the defendant s h a d shown deliberate indifference to his safety. As an i n it i a l matter, Crumbliss has abandoned any challenge to the district co u r t ’s determination that Crumbliss could not recover against Negbenebor and Massie u n d e r 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). T h e r e f

o r e, the only issue on appeal is whether the district court

er r ed in granting summary judgment to the defendants on Crumbliss’s claim that D a r d e n, 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, In c . , 576 F.3d 221, 226 (5th Cir. 2009). Summary judgment is appropriate i f 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.” F E D
. R. C IV
. P. 56(a) (2010). To estab l i s h d e l ib e r ate indifference, the pri s o n e r must show that the prison official knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to inmate health or safety. Farmer v. Bren n a n , 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, C r u mb liss submitted a copy of a letter that purport e d t o b e f r om Darden, admitting that
2 Case: 11-20389 Document: 00511801862 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/27/2012No. 11-20389

there were no straps in the van. Crumbliss maintains that the district court was obliged to accept this d o c u m e nt and consider it in determining whether summary judgment was warranted. The district court’s memorandum opinion i ndicates that it accepted as true the information contained in the d o c u m e n t presented by Crumbliss. Crumbliss has not pointed to any au t h o ri t y f or the proposition t h a t Bonsu and Gonzales perpetrated a fraud upon the court by submitting affidavits that flatl y c o n tradicted the admission in the letter from Darden. Relying on t h e 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 c o u r t acknowledged this factual dispute and concluded that it was not materi al to Crumbliss’s claim of deliberate i n di f

f erence. The district court assumed that there were no straps and accepted as true Crumbliss’s allegation that Gonzales nevertheless instructed Darde n a n d B onsu to transport Crumbliss. The district court nevertheless concluded that the evidence did not demonstrate a subjective belief

on the part of the defendants that Crumbli s s 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

m arks and citation omitted). The summary judgment evidence here sup p o r t s 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