IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-20257

Summary Calendar

JAMES A. MEEKS, III,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

LORIE DAVIS; WARDEN G. VAUGHN; STATE CLASSIFICATION 

COMMITTEE,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:18-CV-3431

Before KING, GRAVES, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

James A. Meeks, III, Texas prisoner # 543366, appeals the dismissal of 

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(b)(1). On appeal, Meeks alleges that the district court misconstrued 

his claim and that he raised a viable Eighth Amendment claim alleging 

 

* 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

November 26, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-20257 Document: 00515215484 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/26/2019
No. 19-20257

2

deliberate indifference with regard to prison conditions. He contends that his 

transfer to another unit did not moot his claims.

We review the district court’s dismissal under § 1915A(b)(1) de novo. See

Green v. Atkinson, 623 F.3d 278, 280 (5th Cir. 2010). To establish an Eighth 

Amendment violation for conditions of confinement, an inmate must show that 

the alleged violation was sufficiently serious, specifically, that it deprived him 

of the most minimal level of life’s necessities and that prison officials acted 

with deliberate indifference to his health or safety. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 

U.S. 825, 834, 847 (1994). To prove unconstitutional prison conditions, an 

inmate need only show that there is a “substantial risk of serious harm.” Gates 

v. Cook, 376 F.3d 323, 333 (5th Cir. 2004).

In the district court, Meeks alleged that the defendants were deliberately 

indifferent in violation of the Eighth Amendment because in August 2018, he 

was subjected to conditions of extreme heat while housed at the Estelle Unit. 

He asserted that he was housed in a facility with poor ventilation where cell 

temperatures exceeded the outside temperatures of 104 to 110 degrees 

Fahrenheit and that he was provided no heat mitigation. Meeks further

alleged that he suffered from medical conditions making him more susceptible 

to extreme heat, that the defendants were aware of his conditions, and that he 

suffered as a result of the heat. Indeed, this court has held that exposing an 

inmate to extreme cell temperatures can constitute cruel and unusual 

punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. See Hinojosa v. Livingston, 

807 F.3d 657, 665-68 (5th Cir. 2015) (finding sufficient allegation of Eighth 

Amendment violation where complaint alleged dangerous heat conditions and 

officials’ disregard of serious health risks for an inmate’s medical conditions);

Ball v. LeBlanc, 792 F.3d 584, 596 (5th Cir. 2015) (affirming injunction 

requiring heat-reduction measures at a death-row facility in Angola, 

 Case: 19-20257 Document: 00515215484 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/26/2019
No. 19-20257

3

Louisiana); Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d 323, 339-40 (5th Cir. 2004) (affirming an 

injunction requiring Mississippi prison to provide ice water, fans, and daily 

showers to death row inmates when heat index was 90 degrees Fahrenheit or 

above). Thus, Meeks’s allegations sufficiently alleged an Eighth Amendment 

violation.

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment dismissing the complaint for 

failure to state a claim is VACATED, and the matter is REMANDED for 

further proceedings. Meeks’s motion for the appointment of counsel is 

DENIED.

 Case: 19-20257 Document: 00515215484 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/26/2019