IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-40127

Summary Calendar

CARL ELMON HUNT,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

SARAH PIERSON, Medical Provider; PAMELA PACE, Practice Manager, 

University of Texas Medical Branch; JOHN DOE, University of Texas Medical 

Branch Director; WILLIAM STEPHENS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS 

DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL 

INSTITUTIONS DIVISION; JOHN RUPERT, Senior Warden Coffield Unit; 

CHRISTOPHER AMAHDRICK, Major, Texas Department of Criminal 

Justice-Correctional Institutions Division,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:15-CV-559

Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Carl Elmon Hunt, Texas prisoner # 832307, appeals the dismissal of his 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging deliberate indifference to his serious 

medical needs in part pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 

 

* 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

April 11, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-40127 Document: 00514425220 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/11/2018
No. 17-40127

2

in part on Nurse Practitioner Sarah Pierson’s motion for summary judgment. 

Hunt argues that the district court erred in granting Pierson summary 

judgment and in determining that she was entitled to qualified immunity when 

she took away his cane and his ground floor only housing restriction and failed 

to provide him with adequate medical care after his fall.

Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal

Hunt’s brief addresses only the district court’s summary judgment 

ruling. He has therefore waived review of the district court’s Rule 12(b)(6) 

dismissals. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); see also 

Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 

1987). Hunt has moved this court for leave to file multiple, albeit untimely, 

reply briefs that exceed the page limit in response to the briefs filed by the 

appellees, as well as exhibits in support of his motion. The leave requested is 

GRANTED in the interest of justice. However, Hunt’s attempt to address the 

Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals in his reply briefs is unavailing because issues raised 

for the first time in a reply brief are also waived. See Warren v. Chesapeake 

Exploration, L.L.C., 759 F.3d 413, 420 (5th Cir. 2014).

Summary judgment dismissal 

This court reviews a district court’s ruling on summary judgment de 

novo, employing the same standard used by the district court. McFaul v. 

Venezuela, 684 F.3d 564, 571 (5th Cir. 2012). A district court “shall grant 

summary judgment if the 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). The court must “draw all reasonable inferences in favor 

of the nonmoving party” and “refrain from making credibility determinations 

or weighing the evidence.” Turner v. Baylor Richardson Med. Ctr., 476 F.3d 

337, 343 (5th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “[A] 

party cannot defeat summary judgment with conclusory allegations, 

 Case: 17-40127 Document: 00514425220 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/11/2018
No. 17-40127

3

unsubstantiated assertions, or only a scintilla of evidence.” Id. (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted). A genuine issue of fact does not exist 

“if the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for 

the non-moving party.” City of Alexandria v. Brown, 740 F.3d 339, 350 (5th 

Cir. 2014). 

Deliberate indifference

As an inmate, Hunt had a clearly established Eighth Amendment right 

not to be denied, by deliberate indifference, attention to his serious medical 

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

officials violate the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual 

punishment when they demonstrate deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s 

serious medical needs, resulting in unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain. 

Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 297 (1991). A prison official acts with deliberate 

indifference only if “the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to 

inmate health or safety.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994); see 

Reeves v. Collins, 27 F.3d 174, 176-77 (5th Cir. 1994) (applying Farmer to a 

denial-of-medical-care claim). “Deliberate indifference is an extremely high 

standard to meet.” Domino v. Texas Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 239 F.3d 752, 

756 (5th Cir. 2001). The plaintiff must establish that the defendants “refused 

to treat him, ignored his complaints, intentionally treated him incorrectly, or 

engaged in any similar conduct that would clearly evince a wanton disregard 

for any serious medical needs.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted). 

Neither an incorrect diagnosis nor the failure to alleviate a significant 

risk that an official should have perceived but did not is sufficient to establish

deliberate indifference. See id. Similarly, unsuccessful treatment, medical 

malpractice, and acts of negligence do not constitute deliberate indifference; 

“nor does a prisoner’s disagreement with his medical treatment, absent 

 Case: 17-40127 Document: 00514425220 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/11/2018
No. 17-40127

4

exceptional circumstances.” Gobert, 463 F.3d at 346; see Estelle v. Gamble, 

429 U.S. 97, 105-06 (1976).

Removal of the cane

Hunt argues that because Pierson had treated him in the past, she knew 

or should have known that he had been declared 70% disabled by the Veterans 

Administration; and she was aware, or reasonably should have been aware, 

that he suffered from schizophrenia, hepatitis, high blood pressure, and a heatrelated illness, all of which required him to take medications that caused

drowsiness and dizziness, thereby necessitating the use of a cane. Hunt 

contends that, given this knowledge, Pierson’s removing his cane after 

observing him for mere seconds while he draped his cane on his wrist while 

obtaining water from the water cooler at the nurses’ station constituted 

deliberate indifference given that she unreasonably took action without 

assessing his physical condition or reviewing his medical records. Moreover, 

Hunt alleges that Dr. Thompson’s medical order provided that he be 

permanently prescribed a cane and ground floor only housing restriction and, 

despite her imputed knowledge of Dr. Thompson’s order, Pierson interfered by 

removing his cane. 

Analysis

The summary judgment evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to 

Hunt, demonstrates that no genuine issue of fact exists regarding Pierson’s 

alleged deliberate indifference. The summary judgment evidence established 

that on November 12, 2013, Pierson observed Hunt walk into the clinic with 

his cane hooked over his arm, with the end of the cane eight inches off of the 

floor. She observed Hunt ambulating without the assistance of his cane around 

the nurses’ station with no limping or bobbing, and she therefore removed his 

cane pass.

 Case: 17-40127 Document: 00514425220 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/11/2018
No. 17-40127

5

Hunt saw Pierson two days later and sought to have his cane returned. 

He advised that he had not been dizzy since he discontinued Lasix. Hunt 

stated that he needed the cane for the degenerative disc disease in his back; 

however, Pierson observed that he had walked in and out of the clinic several 

times that day with no problems and no assistance. She therefore refused to 

return the cane but prescribed him Meloxicam for the pain and swelling in his 

left knee. 

On November 19, 2013, Hunt reported that he had fallen. Nurse 

Broadus attended the scene, confirmed that he did not hit his head, and noted 

no dizziness. No injuries or bleeding were noted. Broadus contacted Pierson, 

who ordered that Hunt be moved to a low housing row. Hunt was seen on 

November 28, 2013, by Nurse Polk. Her examination revealed joint stiffness, 

full range of motion in his upper and lower extremities, and full flexion of neck 

and back, and also showed that his movement, gate, and posture were normal. 

Hunt requested to be examined by another medical provider, specifically Dr. 

Thompson, because he needed a cane. 

On December 4, 2013, Hunt saw Physician Assistant Copeland for 

evaluation for a cane. Copeland noted that Hunt had a normal gait and was 

able to transfer to the examination table with ease, and Copeland noted no 

interim changes since Hunt’s mid-November examination. Copeland therefore 

determined that a cane was not medically indicated at that time. Hunt made 

no complaints to Copeland regarding injuries he allegedly sustained in his fall. 

Pierson saw Hunt again on March 4, 2014, for complaints that he wanted 

his cane back, he had back and knee pain, and he wanted to change his blood 

pressure medication. Pierson observed that he ambulated into the office with 

a “shuffling awkward gait” and with no assistance. Her examination revealed 

that his left leg was approximately a half-inch shorter than the right, that he 

 Case: 17-40127 Document: 00514425220 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/11/2018
No. 17-40127

6

had hip pain, and that he had limited flexion of the spine. His blood pressure 

medication was modified, and Pierson issued him a cane pass for 12 months. 

Hunt’s argument that Pierson’s actions in removing his cane were 

unreasonable because she knew or should have known certain facts about his 

medical condition and the orders of other providers contained in the medical 

records sounds in negligence and not deliberate indifference; an official acts 

with deliberate indifference when he “knows of and disregards an excessive 

risk” to inmate safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837 (emphasis added). The official’s 

conduct must be more than unreasonable, it must be “intentional[]” and “evince 

a wanton disregard” for the inmate’s health and safety. Domino, 239 F.3d at 

756.

Hunt has adduced no summary judgment evidence establishing that 

Pierson had actual knowledge that Dr. Thompson had issued him a permanent 

cane pass in July 2013. At best, a case for medical malpractice or negligence 

could be made against Pierson to the extent that, as one of his providers, she 

was charged with the knowledge of the contents of his medical records; 

however, such acts do not constitute deliberate indifference. See Gobert, 463 

F.3d at 346. Pierson based her decision to remove his cane on her observations 

that Hunt was not using the cane as an assistive device, and the above medical 

evidence establishes that, in addition to Pierson, Physician Assistant Copeland 

also determined that Hunt did not need a cane. In this regard, the summary 

judgment evidence supports the district court’s finding that the crux of Hunt’s 

case is a disagreement over the type of medical care he received, which does 

not raise a cognizable § 1983 claim. See id. 

Removal of ground floor only restriction

Hunt contends that the removal of his cane triggered his housing 

reclassification, which allowed security to move him up to “two-row,” which 

necessitated that he climb stairs. He argues that it can only be inferred from 

 Case: 17-40127 Document: 00514425220 Page: 6 Date Filed: 04/11/2018
No. 17-40127

7

the removal of his cane that Pierson wanted to make him walk up and down 

flights of stairs as a punitive measure because she understood the toll it would 

take on his body. 

Analysis

Hunt is correct that Dr. Thompson’s July 25, 2013 physical examination 

resulted in orders that a “bottom row” restriction be added and to continue his 

cane permit permanently. On Hunt’s Health Summary for Classification Form 

dated July 25, 2013, however, Dr. Thompson checked “No Restriction” for both 

Housing Assignment and Row Assignment, the latter of which provides for a 

“Ground Floor Only” restriction. Roughly three months later, on October 9, 

2013, Hunt was seen by Pierson for a sick call examination. Hunt reportedly 

“[w]ant[ed] to have a bottom row restriction, stat[ing] he has had this in the 

past and he fe[lt] like he need[ed] to have one now.” Pierson observed that 

Hunt had elevated blood pressure, complained of knee and back pain, and used 

a cane for ambulation. She further observed no new injuries and no current 

swelling in the knees, and despite his having degenerative changes on account 

of old injuries, Pierson did not observe any new changes warranting “one row 

restriction” or “bottom bunk.” 

Hunt and Pierson therefore knew one month before his cane was 

removed in November 2013 that he did not have a ground floor only restriction. 

Indeed, the summary judgment evidence establishes his last ground floor only 

restriction was imposed on August 4, 2011. His Health Summary for 

Classification Forms issued thereafter dated July 26, 2012 and August 1, 2012, 

did not impose a ground floor only restriction. 

Consequently, the summary judgment evidence supports the district 

court’s finding that Hunt did not have a ground floor only restriction in place 

when Pierson removed his cane. Hunt’s allegation that Pierson changed the 

ground floor only restriction is conclusional and insufficient to counter the 

 Case: 17-40127 Document: 00514425220 Page: 7 Date Filed: 04/11/2018
No. 17-40127

8

summary judgment evidence because it is unsupported. “[C]onclusional 

allegations and unsubstantiated assertions may not be relied on as evidence 

by the nonmoving party.” Carnaby v. City of Houston, 636 F.3d 183 187 (5th 

Cir. 2011).

Denial of medical treatment after the fall

Hunt additionally argues that he was denied adequate medical 

treatment following his fall and that it was not until the filing of the instant 

law suit that the providers on the Coffield Unit considered his injuries but 

nevertheless failed to follow proper protocol to secure the assistance of a 

medical expert. He cites no authority as to the appropriate protocol. He alleges 

that he still suffers in severe pain because he was denied access to qualified 

medical personnel and faults Pierson for failing to refer him to a medical 

specialist. 

The aforementioned medical evidence establishes that Hunt did receive 

treatment after his fall and he was determined to have suffered no injuries. 

Again, the crux of his argument is a disagreement with the type of medical 

treatment provided, which, as earlier discussed, is not a cognizable civil rights 

claim. See Gobert, 463 F.3d at 346. Moreover, his allegations regarding the 

failure to follow proper protocol are conclusional and thus not summary 

judgment evidence. See Carnaby, 636 F.3d at187

Qualified immunity

A qualified immunity defense alters the typical summary judgment 

burden of proof in that once the defense is pleaded by an official, the burden 

shifts to the plaintiff to rebut the defense by establishing a genuine fact issue 

as to whether the official’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly 

established federal law. Brown v. Callahan, 623 F.3d 249, 253 (5th Cir. 2010). 

It is the plaintiff’s burden to negate qualified immunity; however, all 

inferences are drawn in his favor. Id. The defense of qualified immunity has 

 Case: 17-40127 Document: 00514425220 Page: 8 Date Filed: 04/11/2018
No. 17-40127

9

two prongs: (1) whether an official’s conduct violated a plaintiff’s constitutional 

right and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the 

violation. Id. A court may rely on either prong in its analysis. Id.

Hunt argues that Pierson is not entitled to qualified immunity because

his right to adequate medical care was clearly established in November 2013. 

He contends that the question before this court is whether a reasonable person 

in her position would have known that her conduct violated this clearly 

established right. Hunt argues that a fall should reasonably have been 

anticipated as inevitable after his cane was removed and he was assigned 

second row housing. 

The first prong of the qualified immunity analysis is whether an official’s 

conduct violated a plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Brown, 623 F.3d at 253. As 

discussed above, the summary judgment evidence does not present a genuine 

issue of material fact that would support a claim of deliberate indifference; 

therefore, there has been no showing that Hunt’s constitutional rights were 

violated, and Pierson is entitled to qualified immunity. Id. 

AFFIRMED; MOTIONS TO FILE REPLY BRIEFS OUT OF TIME, TO 

FILE MULTIPLE REPLY BRIEFS, TO FILE TWO OF THE REPLY BRIEFS 

IN EXCESS PAGES, TO FILE EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION 

GRANTED. 

 Case: 17-40127 Document: 00514425220 Page: 9 Date Filed: 04/11/2018