IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-30250

Summary Calendar

LARRY LEWIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

JERRY GOODWIN; DOCTOR HEARNE; COL NAIL; DEBORAH CODY; 

JOEL WILLIAMS; KAYLA SHERMAN,

Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 5:18-CV-800

Before BARKSDALE, ELROD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP), Larry Lewis, Louisiana 

prisoner # 364402, challenges the dismissal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 

1915A, of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous and for failing to state a 

claim upon which relief may be granted. He contends defendants violated his

Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment by 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 23, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-30250 Document: 00515463355 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/23/2020
No. 19-30250

2

treating him with deliberate indifference when: placing him on a prison tier 

without a shower accessible to people with disabilities; refusing to allow him 

access to an accessible shower or to otherwise provide a chair or other 

equipment to make a shower accessible; and denying him the use of a cane or 

walker in his cell. (Even liberally construing Lewis’ brief, as required for pro 

se appellants, Lewis has abandoned any other claims for failure to brief. Yohey 

v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224–25 (5th Cir. 1993).)

Sections 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1) provide for the dismissal of a 

prisoner’s IFP civil action if, inter alia, it is frivolous or fails to state a claim 

upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(b)(1). 

Where, as in this instance, “a district court dismisses a complaint both as 

frivolous and as failing to state a claim[,] . . . we review the dismissal de novo”. 

Samford v. Dretke, 562 F.3d 674, 678 (5th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (italics 

added) (citation omitted).

In determining whether the complaint fails to state a claim, our court 

“us[es] the same standard applicable to dismissals under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(6)”. Rogers v. Boatright, 709 F.3d 403, 407 (5th Cir. 2013)

(citation omitted). In that regard, “a complaint fails to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted when it does not contain sufficient factual matter, 

accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face”. Id. 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Along that line, “[a]llegations 

of pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings 

drafted by lawyers”. Id. (citation omitted).

“The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual 

punishment requires prison officials to provide humane conditions of 

confinement, ensuring that inmates receive adequate food, clothing, shelter, 

and medical care . . . .” Palmer v. Johnson, 193 F.3d 346, 351–52 (5th Cir. 

 Case: 19-30250 Document: 00515463355 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/23/2020
No. 19-30250

3

1999) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To state an Eighth 

Amendment claim based on prison conditions, plaintiff must show: an 

objective, and “sufficiently serious”, deprivation; and an official or officials 

“act[ed] with deliberat[e] indifference to inmate health and safety”. Coleman 

v. Sweetin, 745 F.3d 756, 764 (5th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted). Similarly, to state an Eighth Amendment claim 

for inadequate medical care, plaintiff must show an official or officials acted 

with “deliberate indifference to serious medical needs”. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 

U.S. 97, 104 (1976) (citation omitted). Accordingly, “[w]hether one 

characterizes the treatment received by [Lewis] as inhumane conditions of 

confinement, failure to attend to his medical needs, or a combination of both, 

it is appropriate to apply the deliberate[-]indifference standard”. Wilson v. 

Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 303–04 (1991) (internal quotation marks and citations 

omitted).

“Deliberate indifference is an extremely high standard to meet.” Domino 

v. Tex. Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 239 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir. 2001). A prison 

official acts with deliberate indifference only if “the official knows of and 

disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both 

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

risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference”. Farmer v. 

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). 

Lewis’ contentions do not show that, even if defendants were aware of 

any risk of harm, they consciously disregarded the risk by failing to take 

reasonable measures to abate it. See id. Rather, his claims amount to a 

disagreement with the opinions of medical personnel and with the medical 

treatment he received, which is insufficient to state a deliberate-indifference

 Case: 19-30250 Document: 00515463355 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/23/2020
No. 19-30250

4

claim. See Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 346 (5th Cir. 2006) (citations 

omitted).

The district-court dismissal of Lewis’ complaint counts as a strike 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Lewis is warned that, if he accumulates three 

strikes, he will not be allowed to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed 

while “incarcerated or detained in any facility”, unless he “is under imminent 

danger of serious physical injury”. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

AFFIRMED. SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

 Case: 19-30250 Document: 00515463355 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/23/2020