United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

____________

No. 23-30158

Summary Calendar

____________

Karl E. Thibodeaux, 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Marcus Meyers; Rodney Slay; Donnie Bordelon; Samuel 

Johnson; James Longino; Nikki Chenevert; Brent 

Thompson; Spencer Launey; Laura Deselle; Benjamin 

Maddie; R. Lavalais; Wayne Millus, 

Defendants—Appellees.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 1:20-CV-1630

______________________________

Before Smith, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:

*

Karl E. Thibodeaux, Louisiana prisoner # 489409, appeals the district 

court’s order granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit wherein he alleged that the defendants 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 26, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-30158 Document: 00517046106 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/26/2024
No. 23-30158

2

violated his Eighth Amendment rights by exposing him to environmental 

tobacco smoke (“ETS”), or second-hand smoke. He argues that the 

magistrate judge exhibited bias and improperly gave the defendants legal 

advice in a discovery ruling, the motion for summary judgment was granted 

prematurely, and the defendants were deliberately indifferent to a serious risk 

to his medical health. He has also filed a motion for leave to supplement his 

reply brief, which is GRANTED.

As for his claim of bias, Thibodeaux has not shown that the district 

court committed reversible plain error. See Wright v. Ford Motor Co., 508 F.3d 

263, 272 (5th Cir. 2007). The magistrate judge’s comment, taken in context, 

appears to be nothing more than the magistrate judge exercising his inherent 

authority “to manage [his] own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and 

expeditious disposition of cases.” Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 

630–31 (1962). Furthermore, the comment does not reveal an opinion based 

on an extrajudicial source or demonstrate such a high degree of antagonism 

so as to make a fair judgment impossible. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 

540, 555 (1994). This contention is without merit.

Thibodeaux’s complaint that consideration of the motion for 

summary judgment was premature is based on three broad arguments: (1) he 

was still actively seeking necessary discovery and the discovery deadline had 

not passed; (2) he had filed several protective motions that the district court 

did not rule on prior to deciding the motion for summary judgment; and 

(3) despite efforts to preserve his rights, he was denied the opportunity to file 

a response to the motion for summary judgment.

Once a motion for summary judgment has been filed, a nonmoving 

party may seek a continuance if he believes that additional discovery is 

necessary to respond to the motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d); 

International Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally’s, Inc., 939 F.2d 1257, 1266 (5th Cir. 

Case: 23-30158 Document: 00517046106 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/26/2024
No. 23-30158

3

1991). Review of the record demonstrates that the logbooks requested by 

Thibodeaux do not contain any information related to the defendants’ 

actions to enforce the smoking ban and the Raymond Laborde Correctional 

Center institutional policy prohibiting curing and smoking smokeless 

tobacco. Furthermore, the defendants offered to enter a stipulation to that 

effect. Therefore, Thibodeaux has not demonstrated that the denial of 

additional discovery under Rule 56(d) constituted an abuse of discretion. See

Stearns Airport Equip. Co. v. FMC Corp., 170 F.3d 518, 534 (5th Cir. 1999).

After the defendants filed their motion for summary judgment, 

Thibodeaux filed five “protective motions” designed to further discovery, to 

protect his right to compel that discovery, and to protect his right to file a 

response to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The 

consideration of Thibodeaux’s protective motions in conjunction with the 

defendants’ motion for summary judgment was within the district court’s 

inherent authority to manage its docket. See Link, 370 U.S. at 630–31. As 

such, the district court did not abuse its discretion in its handling of 

Thibodeaux’s motions. In re Deepwater Horizon, 907 F.3d 232, 234 (5th Cir. 

2018).

Thibodeaux’s argument that he was denied the opportunity to file an 

opposition to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment is belied by the 

record. As noted above, disposition of the motion for summary judgment 

without further discovery was appropriate, and the specific discovery 

Thibodeaux referenced had no bearing on the defendants’ enforcement of 

the no-smoking policy. See International Shortstop, Inc., 939 F.2d at 1267. 

Consequently, this argument is without merit.

“This court reviews a summary judgment de novo, using the same 

standard as that employed by the district court.” McFaul v. Valenzuela, 684 

F.3d 564, 571 (5th Cir. 2012). Summary judgment is appropriate “if the 

Case: 23-30158 Document: 00517046106 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/26/2024
No. 23-30158

4

movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the 

movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

A prison official may be held liable under the Eighth Amendment for 

denying a prisoner humane conditions of confinement only if he acts (or fails 

to act) with “deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm to a 

prisoner.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 836 (1994). A prison official acts 

with deliberate indifference “only if he knows that inmates face a substantial 

risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable 

measures to abate it.” Id. at 847.

The summary judgment evidence, which includes that the defendants 

instituted a no-smoking policy at the prison and that they enforce that policy, 

supports the conclusion that the defendants were not deliberately indifferent 

to the risk of harm to Thibodeaux. See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 35-

37 (1993); see also Todd v. Hawk, No. 00-11334, 2001 WL 803568, at *3 (5th 

Cir. 2001) (unpublished); Hampton v. Brown, 544 F. App’x 416, 417 (5th Cir. 

2013) (unpublished). The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

Case: 23-30158 Document: 00517046106 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/26/2024