* 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-51013

Summary Calendar

WESLEY B MAYES

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

FNU ISSAC, Supervisor of University of Texas Medical Branch; DR L

LINTHICUM, Texas Department of Criminal Justice Medical Services Director;

VERNON K PITTMAN, Warden; GILBERT CAMPUZANO, Regional Director;

OWEN J MURRAY, University of Texas Medical Branch Supervisor 

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:06-CV-163

Before GARWOOD, JOLLY and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Wesley Mayes,Texas prisoner # 1274331, appeals the district court’s grant

of summary judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint wherein he

alleged that he was denied his “non-mandatory” arthritis medication, pursuant

to prison policy, while the Travis State Jail was on lockdown. We review de novo

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 26, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-51013

1We also note that there is no evidence that any of the individual

defendants acted (or failed to act) with malice for the purpose, or with the intent,

of causing Mayes pain or injury.

2

a district court’s order granting a summary judgment motion. See Hernandez

v. Velasquez, 522 F.3d 556, 560 (5th Cir. 2008). 

Mayes argues thatthe individual defendants were not entitled to qualified

immunity because they were aware that the nurses were following an “old”

policy which (unlike the newer applicable policy) prohibited the dispensation of

non-mandatory medication during lockdown. Even if this court were to assume,

arguendo, that Mayes did make a showing of supervisory liability, Mayes failed

to make a threshold showing that the defendants were deliberately indifferent

to his serious medical needs. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835-37

(1994).1 The district court thus did not err in granting the individual defendants’

motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. See Johnson v.

Johnson, 385 F.3d 503, 524-25 (5th Cir. 2004). 

The district court also did not err by granting summary judgment in favor

ofthe defendant state agencies. Under the Eleventh Amendment, federal courts

lack jurisdiction to entertain suits in law or equity against a non-consenting

state, or a state agency, by its own citizens. In re Soileau, 488 F.3d 302, 305 (5th

Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 1220 (2008); Martinez v. Texas Dep’t of

Criminal Justice, 300 F.3d 567, 573 (5th Cir. 2002). Mayes’s reliance on Monell

v. Dep’t of Social Services of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 694-95 (1978) is

misplaced because Monell concerned a suit against a municipality, and in no way

suggests that state agencies are subject to suit in federal court. 

Finally, Mayes has not shown that the district court abused its discretion

in denying his motion for the production of documents and for interrogatories.

See Moore v. Willis Indep. School Dist., 233 F.3d 871, 876 (5th Cir. 2000); see also

Heitschmidt v. City of Houston, 161 F.3d 834, 840 (5th Cir. 1998). 
No. 07-51013

3

AFFIRMED.