### 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 , Defendant s
- Appellee s

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 al leging

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. 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: 11/26/2019No. 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 C ir. 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 priso n 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 A ugust 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, t his 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

- 6 8 (5th Cir. 2015) (finding sufficient allegation of Eig hth Amendment violation where complaint allege d 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

- reductio n measures at a death

- row facility in Angola, Case: 19-20257 Document: 00515215484 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/26/2019No. 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