### NUM BER 13-06- 366- CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G

DA NIEL M UN IZ, A pp ellan t,

v . TEXA S DEPA RTM ENT OF CR IM INA L JU ST ICE, ET A L., A pp ellees
.
On ap pe al f rom th e 3 6th D istrict Co urt of B ee Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Y añ ez an d Be na v ide s

M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice Ya ñe z Appell a n t, Dani el Mu niz , proceed ing pro s e and in form a pa upe ris , i s a n i nmate confine d i n the Mc Con nel l Uni t of t he Tex as Dep artment of C ri minal Ju sti ce–C or re cti onal Ins ti tuti ons Di v is ion ( “TD CJ ”)

. He sue d appel lee s— Uni v ersi ty of Tex as Me dic al Br anch, TDC J, Ma x imi ll ian o H er re ra , and Ei lee n Kenn edy —for deni al of medic al tr e atment42 U

. S

. C

. § 1 98 3 (20 00 ). 1 See U. S. C ON ST . a m e n d . V III

. 2 2 pursuantto 42 U .S.C ., sec ti on 1983. Ap pel lan t app eal s fr om the deni al of his moti on for 1
a te mp orar

y i nj un c ti on a g ai ns t ap pe l l ee s
. W e affi r m. I. Back ground In hi s “O rigin a l Pe ti ti o n fo r Pr e lim in a ry In ju n ct io n ,” ap p e lla n t s ta te d th e fo llo wing: Plaint if f suf fers f rom b leed ing hemo rrhoids tha t begin [sic] in the early part of 199 4. Plaint if

f h as be en rep eat edly schedu led an d re-sched ule [sic] for s urg er

y ov e r te n ( 1 0) y ears n ow
. As the t ime cont inu es to pa ss , t he Pl ain ti ff ’s condi ti on cont inu es to deter iorate, and cont inu es to bl eed excessiv ely w ith extend ed p a in f rom h is conditio n. T he Def end ant s’[sic] hav e r epeated ly

r efused to extend pr oper medic al care and tr eatment to t he Pl ain ti ff for h is co ndi ti on to date upon re q uestafte r req uestto each of the named D efendants’ [s ic ]. Appel lan t as ser

ted that appel lee s’ f ail ur e to pr ov ide him w it h adequ ate medi cal treatment
v iolate s the Eighth Ame ndm ent ’s prohibition against cruel and unu sual punishm ent

. Hi s 2 pe ti ti on r eq ue s ted t he t r i al c ou rt to e nj oi n ap pe l l ee s “ fr om r efu s i ng t o prov i de [ hi m] adeq uate medic al care and tr eatment pr ev ale nt under the sta ndard of medic al tr eatment in Bee C ounty , Tex as, and the 8 th A mendment t o the U nit ed St a te s Consti tuti on.” The peti ti on further soug ht a decl ar ator y jud g ment and compens ator y damag es in the s um of $250,00 0. On Jun e 6, 200 6, the t rial cou rt held a he aring on app ellant ’s petition for prelimina ry inj unct ion

. Appel lan t informed the tri al cour t of his medic al cond it ion and the p ain i ncur re d from i t; he al so sp o ke o f his i nabi li ty to acq uire medi cal treatment for hi s c ondi ti on. Appel lan t t old the cour

t t hat h e w anted an inj unct ion that w oul d order appel lee s t o prov ide him w it h the nec ess ar y operati on to cu re hi s c ondi ti on. T h e t ria l cour t den ied theR h o d i a , I n c . v . H a rr is C o u n ty , 470 S. W

. 2d 4 15, 419 ( T ex. C i v
. App. –H oust on [ 1st D i st

. ] 197 1, no 3 w ri t ). U ni ver

sal H eal t h S er vs. , I nc. v. Thom pson , 24 S

. W

. 3d 57 0, 57 7 ( T ex
. A pp
. –A us t i n 2 00 0, no pe t

. ). 4
I d. 5
R P & R , I n c . v . T e rr

i to , 32 S

. W

. 3d 39 6, 40 0 (T ex
. A pp
. –H ou s t on [ 14 t h D i s t

. ] 20 00 , no pe t

. ). 6 3 injunct ion, sta ting, in part, tha t app ellant had not pre sent ed su f f icient ev iden ce tha t w ould
w ar ra nt g ra nti ng the inj unct ion

. II. A pp licab le L aw The Fi rs t C our

t o f A p p eal s, in dis cus si ng temporar y i nju nct ion s, has sta ted t he fo llo wing: In a hear ing on appl ic ati on f or a tempor ar

y i nju nct ion the onl y

q uest ion before t he c our

t i s t he r ig ht of the appl ic ant t o a p re ser v ati on of the sta tus q uo of the subj e ct m atter of the s uitpendi ng a fina l tr ial of the c ase on i ts m e ri t s
. T o wa rr a n t t h e is s u a n c e o f t h e wri t , t h e a p p li c a n t n e e d o n ly s h o w a pr obabl e r ig ht an d a p ro babl e i nju ry ; he is not re q uire d t o es tabl is h tha t he w ill f inally p re v ail in the litigation. W here the ple adin gs and the evidence pr esenta c ase of proba ble r ig ht an d probabl e inj ur y , the tr ial cour

t i s c lot hed w it h broad di sc re ti on i n det er mini ng w hether to is sue the w rit and it s o rd er w il l be r ev ersed onl y

on a sh ow ing of a c lea r abuse of dis cr eti on. 3 To est a b l i s h a p r o b a b l e r i g h t t o r e c o v e r y , t h e a p p l i c a n t mu s t h a v e a c a u s e o f a cti on for
w hic h he maybe g ra nted re li ef. To demons tr a te p ro b a b le inju ry or har m, an appl ic ant 4 must show

an i nju ry for w hic h the re ca n be no real leg al measure of damag es or

none that
c a n b e d e t e rm in e d wit h a su f f ic ie n td e gr e e o f

ce rt a in t y, i. e
. , a n o n c o m p e n s a b le in ju ry. 5 “T h e re a re two g e n e ra l t yp e s o f t e m p o ra ry in ju n c t io n s : p ro h ib it ive a n d m a n d a t o ry. A prohi bit iv e inj unct ion f or bid s conduc t, w her eas a mandatory inju nct ion req uires it .” The 6 tempor ar

y i nju nct ion i n this ca se is mandato ry bec ause itr eq uires appel lee s t o prov ide appel lan t w it h s urg ic al care.R hodia, I nc. , 470 S. W

. 2d a t 419

. 7 Sm i t h v. C ar

pent er , 3 16 F

. 3d 1 78 , 18 3-8 4 (2d C i r. 20 03 ) ( c i t ati on s an d i nterna l qu otat i on s om i t t ed ). 8 4 Altho ugh ordina rily

a m and ato ry

in junctio n w ill no t be grante d be fore final hear ing , a t ria l co u rthas the pow er to g ra nt a mandator

y i nju nct ion at a hear ing for a temporary injunc ti on w her e the ci rc umstan ces j ust ify i t. W hether a t empor ar

y mandator

y inj unct ion w il l be g ra nted is w it hin the sound discretion of

the trial co urt. T he grant t here of wil l b e den ied, howev er, unle ss the r ig ht t her eto i s c lea r and c ompell ing and a case of ex tr eme nec ess it y or har dshi p i s p re sent ed. 7 The st andard to be appl ied i n a c ase inv olv ing an a ll eg ed Ei g hth A me n d m ent
v iol ati on ar is ing from t he deni al of medic al care i s w ell se ttl ed:

In order to est abl is h an Ei g hth A mendment c lai m ar is ing out of inad equate med ical care, a prison er m ust prove d elibera te indif feren ce to his ser iou s medi cal needs

. This st a n d ar d i ncor por ates both obj ect iv e and subj ective e le ments. The ob jec ti v e medi cal need ele ment meas ur es the sev er it y of the a ll eg ed depr iv ati o n , whil e the su bje cti v e del ibe ra te ind ifferenc e el ement en sures that the d efendant pr is on offici al act ed w it h a suffici entl y

cu lpa ble st ate o f mind. Beca use the E ig hth A mendment is not a v ehi cl e for br ing ing medi cal ma lpractice claim s, nor a sub stitu t e f or state tort law , not ev erylapse in pr is on medic al care w il l ri se to the lev el of a cons ti tuti onal v iol a ti o n . The Supr eme C our

t [ has] ex pla ine d tha t t he Ei g hth Amendment’ s proh ibi ti on on cr uel and unusu al puni shment s e ncompas ses the del ibe ra te failu re to tr eat a prisone r’s seri ous il lness or injury resulting in the inf liction of unn ecessa ry p a in a n d s u f

fe ri n g. B e c a u s e s o c ie t y d o e s n o te xp e c tt h a tp ri s o n e rs wi ll h a ve unqua lifie d acce ss to hea lth care, a prisoner m ust f irst make this thresh old show in g o f

seri ous il lne ss or

i nju ry i n order to sta te an Ei g hth A mendment cl aim for deni al of medic al care. Si m ila rly, a pr is oner mustdemons tr ate more than an i nadv ertent failu re to pr ov ide adeq uate medic al care by pr is on off ic ial s t o succ ess fully

establ is h Eig hth Amendment li abi li ty

. An offici al act s w it h the r eq uis it e de liberate i ndi ff er ence w hen t hat o ff ic ial kn ow s o f and dis re g ar ds an ex ces si v e r is k t o i nmate he alt h or sa fety , a sta te of mi nd e qu iva le n tt o t h e fa m il ia r st a n d a rd o f re c k le s s n e s s a s u s e d in cr im in a l l a w. 8 III. Dis cuss ion T h o u gh p re s e n t e d a s o n e is s u e o n a p p e a l, a p p e ll a n t ’s b ri e f a p p e a r s t o ra is e two5

is sues
. In on e i ssu e , appell ant c ontends thatthe tr ial co urt w ro ng ly deni ed hi m the opp ortun ity

t o b e he ard an d prese nt evidence bef ore de nying his mot ion for tem pora ry inj unct ion

. W e ov er ru le thi s i ss ue becaus e the record rev eal s that appel lan t w as pr ov ide d the aforem ent ione d op portu nities. In th e rem aining issue, ap pellan t asserts th e trial court
er re d i n deny ing hi s mot ion for t empor ar y i nju nct ion

. W e di sag re e. In an af f idavit attach ed to his petition f or p relimina ry in junctio n, app ellant st ate d: “I hav e repeat edl y

asked that I be tr eated for my cond ic ti on [si c], how ev er , myreq uest s for tr eatment hav e go n e i gno red ti me after ti me. I n the l astten (1 0) y ears, I hav e been
sc h e d u le d an d re -sc h e d u le [s ic] fo r tr e a tm e n t, an d ref e rra ls h a ve b e e n de n ie d .” Th o u gh appel lan t c lai ms hi s req uest s for treatment hav e been ig nor ed, t he transc ri pt fro m the hear ing on a ppel lan t’ s p eti ti on i ndi cat es that appel lan t has re cei v ed some form of medic al atten ti on. At the heari ng , the tri al cour t asked appell ant if he had “s een a doct or and tal ked to th em abo ut w hat ty pe o f ope ration [he] w ould nee d,” to w hich ap pellan t replied: “ I already tal ked to ev er

y body and they

don’ t w ant t o do any thi ng about it .” Ap pel lan t furt her state d tha t he had requeste d tha t his me dical records be delivered to the court so the court coul d as cer

tai n the st atus of appel lan t’ s c omplai ned- of medic al condi ti on. The medic al
re co rd s, ho wever, w e re no t yet ava ila b le to th e co u rtat th e tim e of th e he a rin g. Appel lan t di d notco ntend that his need for s urg ic al tr eatment w as suppo rt ed by the
recom me nda tion o f

a me dical do ctor, no r did he allege tha t he w as de nied any and all fo rm s o f m e d i c a l c a re fo r h is co n d it io n
. W it h o u tm o re fa c t s , a p p e ll a n ta p p e a rs t o h a ve
me rely presen ted the trial court wi th a dif feren ce in opin ion regarding the trea tm ent o f hisS e e B o w r in g v . G o d w in , 55 1 F

. 2d 44 , 48 (4t h C i r. 19 77 ). 9 See i d. 10 6 cond ition. Courts have disav owed any att em pt to secon d-guess the propriety or adequacy

9 of a par ti cul ar co urse of tre a tm e n t, w hic h r emains a q uest ion of sound professi onal jud g ment. Ac cordin g ly , c our ts shou ld not i nter

v ene upo n al leg ati ons of mere n eg li g ence, mis tak e, or

di ff er ence of opini on. W e thus f ind that appell ant did not p ro v e he had a cl ear 10 and c ompell ing r ig ht t o the re li ef s oug ht. Beca use ther e is no s how ing of a c lea r abuse of dis cr eti on, w e ov er ru le appel lan t’ s s econd i ss ue. IV. Conclus ion W e aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment.

LINDA REYNA Y AÑEZ, J u s t i c e

Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 17t h day

of Jul y , 200 8.