IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-10062

Summary Calendar

ANTWON PARKER,

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

KIMBERLY FISK, Physician Assistant; MR. NFN MARKEZ, Extortion Officer,

Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:11-CV-116

Before BARKSDALE, CLEMENT, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Antwon Parker, Texas prisoner # 1311517, proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis, challenges the failure-to-state-a-claim dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

civil-rights action. Parker contends: Fisk failed to respond to his medical needs;

she retaliated against him for complaining about her; and, post-judgment, he

should have been allowed to amend his complaint. 

After accepting plaintiff’s factual allegations as true, if no relief can be

granted as a matter of law, an action may be dismissed. Harris v. Hegmann, 198

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 22, 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: 12-10062 Document: 00511965841 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/22/2012
No. 12-10062

F.3d 153, 156 (5th Cir. 1999). To establish a claim of unconstitutional medical

care, Parker must show Fisk acted with deliberate indifference to his serious

medical needs. See Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 345-46 (5th Cir. 2006). 

Parker’s pleadings reflect that he received frequent and responsive medical care. 

He concedes he was given a bottom bunk and has not been required to work. 

Though he was not given the bottom-row cell restriction he requested, he was

provided medication and other restrictions. Parker’s claims about the care and

attention provided by Fisk show merely a disagreement about what care was

proper. Such allegations do not state a claim of deliberate indifference. See id.

at 346. 

In claimingFisk retaliated against him, Parker contends Fisk hindered his

efforts to obtain medical records and temporarily discontinued his pain

medication. Obviously, prison officials may not retaliate against an inmate for

exercising the right to complain about misconduct or to gain access to the courts. 

Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 1164 (5th Cir. 1995). Understandably, our court

regards such retaliation claims “with skepticism”. Id. at 1166. Parker’s

pleadings indicate that prison officials responded to his record requests and do

not allege specific facts to show that Fisk was responsible for any delay in record

production. And, Parker’s expressions of annoyance with the prison bureaucracy

do not constitute specific factual allegations showing he was denied his medical

records as a result of an unconstitutional motive. See id. 

Concerning the two-month denial of pain medication, the pleadings reflect

that Fisk had offered to give Parker new pain medications but that Parker only

sought the bottom-row restriction. The pleadings also reflect that prison officials

believed Parker had refused pain medications. Moreover, Parker alleged no

specific fact that would show Fisk was personally responsible for discontinuing

such medication or that she refused to reorder it. In short, Parker’s allegations,

if true, do not establish that the interruption in his pain medication arose from

retaliation or any other unconstitutional motivation.

2

Case: 12-10062 Document: 00511965841 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/22/2012
No. 12-10062

Our court reviews for abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of

Parker’s post-judgment motion to amend; the denial will stand if Parker “has not

clearly established that he could not reasonably have raised the new matter

prior to the trial court’s merits ruling”. Vielma v. Eureka Co., 218 F.3d 458, 468

(5th Cir. 2000). Parker fails to show he could not have amended his complaint

before dismissal. Moreover, his proposed amended complaint is virtually

indistinguishable from his original complaint; therefore it would have been

futile. 

Finally, our consideration ofParker’s claims against Markez–and Parker’s

challenge to the severance of those claims–is barred by the final disposition of

those claims in Parker v. Markez, No. 2:11-CV-285 (N.D. Tex. 9 Jan 2012), and

Parker v. Markez, No. 12-10047 (5th Cir. 8 Feb. 2012) (dismissing appeal). 

AFFIRMED. 

3

Case: 12-10062 Document: 00511965841 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/22/2012