### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 40653 S u m m ary C al en da r

RO BE RT M. F ENL ON , P l a i n tiff-A p p ell a n t ,
ve r s us N A T H A N IE L Q U A R T E R M A N , D ir e c to r , T e x a s D e p a r tm e n t o f C r im in a l J u s tic e , C o r r e c tio n a l In s tit u tio n s D iv is io n , in B o th H is O ffic ia l a n dP e r s o n a l C a p a c ity ; CH I EF AD M I N I STR AT O R O F U N IVE RSI TYO F TE XA S M ED I CA L PR O VI D ER S, Em pl o ye d b y U nive r s i t y o f Te xa s M e di c alBr anc h; P E R S O N S U N K N O W N , E m pl oyedby T exas D epa rt m en tof C ri m i n alJu st i ce; U N ID E N T IF IE D O F F IC E R S , E m p lo y e db yT e x a s D e p a r tm e n t o f C r im in a l J u s tic e ; L IE U T E N A N T B A L D W IN , L aw L ibrary S u pervi sor E m pl oyedby T exas D epa rt m en tof C ri m i n alJu st i ce , D efen da n t s- A pp el l ees.

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he E as t er n D i st r i c tof Texas N o. 6: 07- C V

- 532 United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 26, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 40653

Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not * be publishe d and is not precedent exceptunder the limited circu mstance s set forthin5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 2 B ef ore D AV IS, SM ITH , an d D E N N IS, C i rcui tJu dg es . JE R R YE

. SM ITH , C i rcui tJu dg e: *

R o b e r t F e n lo n , a T e x a s s ta te p r is o n e r , s u e du n d e r4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 fo ra lleg e dv iola tion s o f h is co n stitu tion a l righ ts. T h e d istr ict co u rt fo u n dF e n lo n ’s
c l ai m s ent i r ely w i t houtm er i tand di sm i ss ed t he l aw suitas f rivol ous under 28 U. S

. C. § 1 9 1 5 A(b )

. F e n l o n a p p e a l s . F i n d i n gn o e r r o r , we AF FI RM

.
I

. F e n lo n b r o u g h t n in e cla im s ; th e f ir s t fo u rre la te dto aca n c e r o u s lu m p in h i s neck an d an abd om i n alan eu rysm . In h i s c om pl ai n tan d at an evidenti ary h eari n g h el d p u rsuan tt o S pears v. McCot t er , 766 F

. 2d179 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 98 5) , Fe nl on st ated t h at f

or years h e w as t ol d t h at t h e l u m p on hi s neck w as not c an cer. I tw as l at e rde t e r m i ne d t hatt he l um p i s s qua m o us c e l l c ar c i no m a, at yp e o f c anc e r . F e n lo n cla im e dh is ch a n c e o f e r a d ic a tin gth e ca n c e rh a s b e e n s ig n ific a n tly har m e d b y t he doc t o r s ’fail ur e t o i de nt if y i tea r l i e r . I n hi s f

i r s tc aus e o f

a c t i o n, he al l ege d t hathi s m edi c alc ar e r ef l ec t s del iber at e i ndif feren ce t o hi s m edi c al
n e e d s . I n h i s s e c o n d , F e n l o n a v e r r e dt h a tt h e s i x - mo n t h wa i tb e t w e e n t h e t i me h is ca n c e rw a s d ia g n o s e da n dh is o p e r a tio n s h o w s d e lib e r a te in d iffe r e n c e p r o x ima t e l yc a u s e db yt h e p o l i c y o f u n d e r f u n d i n g t h e p r i s o n e rme d i c a lc a r e s y s t e m. H i s th i rdcl a i m i n vo lve dan ab d om i n a lan eu ry sm . F en l on h a dco m p la in edto p r is o n m e d ic a l p r o v id e r s o f a“p u ls in g lu m p ” in h is s to m a c h , b u t t h e yh a dto ld hi m i tw as nota pr obl em . A few ye ar s l at er , thatl um p w as di agnos ed as an abd o m in a l a n e u r y s m . H e c la im e dd e lib e r a te in d iffe r e n c e . T h e a n e u r y s m w a s d i-N o. 08- 40653

3 ag no s e d i n J une 2 00 7 ando pe r at e d o n o n A ugu s t7, 200 7. H e al l e ge d t hatt he for th

- t h ree- da y del ay betw een di agn osi s and surgery show ed d el iberate i n di fferen ce. In h i s fifth cl a i m , F en l on ask ed f or a n i nj u n cti on ord erin g th a t his teeth be r epair ed

. H i s si xt h cl ai m r el at ed t o de ni alof pos t

- ope r at i on m edi c at i on at ni ght t i m e. H e a ver r ed t hatt he probl em i s w i t h Texas D epar t m entof C r i m i nal Jus t i c e (“ TD CJ” ) po l i c y, w hi c h do e s no t pr o vi de ni ght t i m e m e di c at i o n t o pr i s o ne r s a fte rs u r g e r y . Fenl on’ s se vent h cl ai m c onc er ned di sc om f or tc ause d by the bus es t hatr egu l a rl y tra n sp ort h i m f rom h i s p ri son to off-site m ed i ca lh osp i tals at h i s req u est. Fenl o n a r gue d t hatt he b us e s ’“t r uc k- l i ke sus pe ns i o ns ” and l ac k o f a i rc o ndit i o ni n g com bi n ed to creat e a ri de t h at am ou n t ed t o t ort u re. In h i s f i n al t w o cl ai m s, F en l on argu ed that he w as den i ed acc ess t o court. Sp ecif i cal l y, he com pl ai n ed t h a th e c a n a c c e s s t h e p r i s o n ’ s l a w l ib r a r yf o ro n l yf

i f t e e n h o u r s p e rw e e k

. H e al s o c o nt e nde d t hat he c o ul d no t f i l e hi s pe t i t i o n f

o r w r i t o f c e r t i o r ar i t o t he U

. S. Supr e m e C o ur t , be c aus e t he pe t i t i o n r e quir e d ac o pyo f t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s o pi nio n , a n dT D J C p o lic yd o e s n o t g iv e p r is o n e r s a c c e s s to ap h o to c o p ym a c h in e . F en l on presented t h ese cl ai m s pro se . The di st r i c tc our thel d a S pears h eari n g, t h orough l y i den t i f i ed F en l on ’ s fact u alan d l egal al l egati on s, an d com

p r e h e n s iv e lyr e v ie w e dh i s p r i s o n r e c o r d s . T h e c o u r tth e n d is m is s e dF e n lo n ’s
c l ai m s i n al e ngthy ande xha us t ive l y- do c um e nt e d o pi ni o n. F en l on app eal s, argu i n g t h at th e courtfai l ed to ad dress hi s t rue al l egat i o n s . He i n v i t e s u s t o c o n s i d e r t h e j u d g m e n t t h r o u g h t h e f r a m e wo r k o f

t he M ad i s o ni an Com pr o m i s e a nd the Se pa r at i o n of P o w e r s doc t r i ne . W e de c l i ne t he oppor t uni t y t o e xpound on t he o r i gi ns o f ourfede r alj udi c i ar y.
II. Th e di st ri c tc our tdes c r ibed the f ive- yeardel ay i n i dent i f yi ng t he s quam ou s c ellc a rc in o m a as t h e “h eartof F en l on ’ s c om pl ai n t
. ” A l t h ou gh t h e courtN o. 08- 40653

4 sy m pat hi ze d w i t h F enl on’ s per so nalt r agedy , i tdi d notf i nd evi denc e o f

delibe r a te in d iffe r e n c e to h is m e d ic a l n e e d s . “D e lib e r a te in d iffe r e n c e is a n e x tr e m e ly h i gh st an da rd t o m eet
. Itis indis pu t able t h at an i n corr ectdi agn osi s by pri son
m e d ic a l p e r s o n n e l d o e s n o t s u ffic e t o s ta te a c la im fo rd e lib e r a te in d iffe r e n c e .” D om ino v. T

D CJ-I D , 23 9 F. 3d 75 2 ( 5t h Ci r . 20 01 )

. The di s t r i c t c o ur t di d no tf i nd
a constit u t i on alv i ol ati on in the del ay of severalm on t h s f

or t reat m en tor a poli cy o f d e lib e r a te lyu n d e r fu n d in gm e d ic a l ca r e fo rp r is o n e r s . The c o ur ta l s o di s m i s s e dF e n l o n ’ s a l l e ga t i o ns t hatpr i s o n b us r i de s a m o unt t o t or t ure , c i t i ng R ho de s v . Chapm an , 452 U

. S

. 337 , 346

- 47 (1981), f or t h e propos i t i o n t h a tr e s t r i c t iv e a n dh a r s h p r i s o n c o n d i t i o n s a r e p a r to f t h e p e n a l t yi mp o s e db ys o c i e t yo n c r i mi n a lo f fe n d e r s . T h e c o u r te mp h a s i z e dt h a tme r e d i s c o mfo r t o rin c o n v e n ie n c e d o e s n o t a m o u n t t o a n E ig h th A m e n d m e n t v io la tio n , Wils on v. Lynaugh , 8 78 F. 2d8 46 , 8 49 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 98 9) , a nd Fe nl o n’ s al l egati o ns do notam ountt o a nyt hi ng m or e. Fenl on al sodi d notshow an y c ons t i t ut i onal l y s i gni f i c antha r m f

r o m t he fe w ho ur s dur i ng w hi c h he w as de ni e d p ai n m e di c at i o n. N ordi d he s how t hatpr i so n of f i c i al s w er e del iber at ely i ndi f fer entt o hi s dent al
ne e ds o rt hat he has be e n de ni e d ac c e s s t o c o ur t
. The di s t r i c t c o ur tf o und Fenl o n’ s e nt i r e co m pl ai ntt o b e f r ivo l o us a nd m e r i t l e s s und e r§ 1 91 5A and Ne i tzk e v . Wi l l i a ms , 4 9 0 U .S . 3 1 9 , 3 2 5 -2 7 (1 9 8 9 ).

III. W e re v ie w a§ 1 9 1 5 d is m is s a l a s fr iv o lo u s fo r a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . Wi lson , 878 F

. 2d at 850. “ D i st ri ctcourt s hav e broad d i scr et i on i n deter m i n i n g w h et h er acom p l a i n t i s f

rivo l ou s. ” I

d. a t 8 4 9
. T h e re c o r de s ta b lis h e s th a t F e n lo n ’ s cla im s a r e w i t h o u tme r i t
. Me r e me d i c a ln e g l i g e n c e d o e s n o tg iv e r i s e t o a§ 1 9 8 3 c l a i m, j u st as m ere discom fort o n b u s r id es d oe s n ot tri gg er th e E i gh th A m en d m en t. B ri ef de l a ys i n rece ivin g p a i n m ed i ca ti on an dm ed i c a lcare do n ot give ri se to
c l ai m s of a c ons t i t ut i onaldi m ens i on, eit her

. The di st r i c tc our thel d a S pearsN o. 08- 40653

5 h eari n g, caref

u l l y consi dered Fel o n’ s c o m pl aint , a nd r evi ew ed h i s pri son recor ds. W e fin dn o e r r o rin t h a t c o u r t’s th o r o u g h a n dca r e fu l o p in io n , a n d , e s s e n tia lly f or t h e reasons setf ort h t h erei n , w e A F F IR M

. A l lpen di n g m ot i on s are DE NI ED

.