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 except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 20547 Su m m ar y Cal endar

M ELVI N A LAN BO W EN Pl ai nt i f f

- Appe l l ant

v. N ATH AN I EL QU ARTER M AN ; DI AN A D KU KU A; G RO VER W GO OD W ELL, JR; G LE N D O N E SC H U M AC H ER ; JASO N CLI VE S 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 or th e S ou t h ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 4: 06- C V

- 4056

B ef ore SM ITH , ST E W A R T , an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * M e lv in A la n B o w e n , T e x a s p r is o n e r # 1 1 2 5 4 0 7 , a p p e a ls th e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s di sm i ssalof

hi s Sect i on 1 983 l aw sui tf or fai l u re t o st ate a c l ai m up on w h i ch
r e lie f m a yb e g r a n te d

. S ee 2 8 U. S

. C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) (i i)

. W e AF FI RM

. W e revi ew t h e di sm i ssalof B ow en ’ s c l ai m s de no vo . S ee Harr i s v. Hegm ann , 198 F

. 3d153 , 156 ( 5th C i r. 199 9)

. Asui tm ay be d i sm i ssed f or fai l u re t o st ate a c l ai m up on w h i ch rel i ef m ay be granted i f, assum i n g al lw el l

- pl ead ed United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Aug ust4, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 20547

2 fact s are t rue, t h e pl ai n t i f f ha s n otst ated “ en ou gh fact s t o st ate a c l ai m t o reli ef th a t i s p l a u sibl e on i ts face.” I n reK at r i na CanalB r e ache s Li t ig. , 495 F. 3d 191, 2 0 5 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) (in te r n a l q u o ta tio n m a r k s a n dcit a tio n e x c lu d e d), ce rt. d enie d , 1 2 8 S

. C t. 1 2 3 0 , 1 2 3 1 (20 0 8 ). Fort he fi rstti m e o n a ppe al , Bowen m ak e s t he s e a l l e ga t i o ns : t hatt he de fe nda nt s v i o l ated t he Te xa s M e di c alLi ab i l i t y andI ns ur anc e I m pr o ve m e nt A c t; th a t ev e n th o u g h in m a te s w e r e to ld a t s a fe tym e e tin g s n o t t o lift ta b le s in th e d in in gh a ll b yth e m s e lv e s , h e w a s o r d e r e d t o l ift t h e ta b le s b yh im s e lf b eca u se o f ash orta ge of w ork ers; an dth a t on e of th e d efen d a n ts ord ere dh i m to l i f t100

- pou n d ba gs of

potat oes af

t er he i nj u red h i s han d. A s t h ese c l ai m s w ere
n o t r a is e dinth e d is tr ic t c o u r t, th e s e c la im s a r e n o t c o n s id e r e do n a p p e a l. S ee L everet t e v. L ou i svi l le La d d er Co. , 1 8 3 F .3d 3 3 9 , 3 4 2 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 9 ). In ad di t i on t o t h ese i m proper n ew cl ai m s that w e d o not ana l yze, B ow en
a rg u es th a t th e d i stri ct cou rt erred bydism i ssingh i s cl a im o f d elib era te i ndif fere nc e t o hi s s e r i o us m e di c alne e ds

. The ba s i s o f hi s c l ai m i s t hatt he
m edi caldefen da n t s di d not provi de proper m edi cal care an d t h at h e w as f orced t o perf orm w ork t h at c au sed an d then exacerbated an i nj u ry t o hi s han d. B ow en al l ege dl y i nj ure d hi s hand w hen l ow erin g a t abl e. Thi s i nj ury i s al l ege d t o b e perm an en t
. H e s pe c ul at e s t hatif he ha d b e e n t r e at e d b y an o r t ho pe di cha nd
s p e c ia lis t, h is inju r yw o u ldn o t h a v e b e c o m e p e r m a n e n t. B ow en ’ s al l egat i ons abo uthi s m edi c alt r eat m entes t abl i sh t hathe w as
e x a m in e db ym u ltip le d o c to r s a n dp h y s ic ia n s ’a s s is ta n ts a n dw a s tr e a te dfo rh is handi nj ur y. Bowen hi m s e l f s t at e s tha th e rec e ive d s e ve n da ys o f f f r o m w o r k,
an d w as res t ri ct ed f

rom l i f t i n g m ore t h an 50 pou n ds an d f rom repetit ive u se of h i s h an ds. B ow en al so assert s t h at h e w as t reat ed w i t h st eroi ds an d p ai n kill ers. Th us, B ow en ac know l edge s t hatat t ent i on w as given t o hi s i nj ury. B ow en di d n otal l ege an y fact s show i n g t h at t h e m edi caldefen da n t s kn ew t h at he ha d a seri ou s m edi cal n eed and ref u sed t o t reat t h at need. W h i l e B ow en all e ge d thato ne phy s i c i an’ s a s s i s t anto nc e r e f us e d t o s e e hi m andt hatas e c o ndN o. 08- 20547

3 p h y s ic ia n ’ s a s s is ta n t r e fu s e dto g iv e h im tr e a tm e n t t h a t a d o c to rp r e s c r ib e d , in bot h i nst ance s, B ow en w as l at ert r eat ed bya do c t or . B ow en doe s notal l ege t hat h e s u ffe r e da n yinju r yfr o m a n yd e la yintr e a tm e n t. Atm o s t , Bowen d i s ag r e e d wi t h t he m e di c alt r e at m e nthe r e c e ive d a nd f ou n d the m edi calt reat m en tt o be i n ef fec tiv e . T h i s i s i n suff i ci en tt o st ate a
v ia b le cla im fo rd e lib e r a te in d iffe r e n c e to s e r io u s m e d ic a l n e e d s . SeeD om i no v. T ex. D ep’ tof C ri m i n al Ju st i ce , 2 3 9 F .3d 7 5 2 , 7 5 6 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). B ow en also cl a i m s th a t his h a n di nj u ryoccu rred w h en h e w a s ord ere dto l i f theavyt abl es . H ow eve r , he di d notal l ege t hathe had any i nj ury orphysi c al l i m i t at i ons w hen he l i f t ed the heavytabl es ort hatt he def endant s had kn ow l edg e t h at li f

t i n g t h e t ables coul d cau se hi m i nj u ry. W h i l e B ow en al l eged t h at he w as requir ed to w ork i n t h e f i el ds an d i n t h e ki t chen at t h e Stri n gfel l ow U ni ti n vi ol at i on o f

hi s r epe t i t ive use of

hands r es t r i c t i on, h e di d n otal l ege t hat t hi s w o r k was re quir e d byany o f t he nam e d de fe nda nt s ort hathe s uf fe r e d a ny inju r yfr o m p e r fo r m in gth e w o r k

. B o w e n ’ s a lle g a tio n s m ig h t s u p p o r t t h a t t h e d e fe n d a n ts n e g lig e n tly
as s i gne d hi m t o pe r f

o r m w o r k t hatc aus e d o re xa c e rba t e d hi s i nj ur i e s . Thatki nd of a l l eg a ti on d oe s n ot state a viab l e cl a i m for d elib era te i n d i ffe r e n c e . S ee Ja ck so n v. Ca in , 8 6 4 F .2 d1 2 3 5 , 1 2 4 6 (5 th C ir . 1 9 8 9 ). B o w e n h a s n o t s h o w n t h a tt h e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e db yd is m is s in gh is d e lib e r a te in d iffe r e n c e to s e r io u s m e d ic a l n e e d s cla im s . In ad di t i on t o t h e m edi cal

- rel ated cl ai m s, B ow en a rgues t h at the di st ri ct
c o ur te r r e d b y di s m i s s i ng hi s c hall e nge s t o hi s w o r k as s i gnm e nt s . H e m ai nt ai ns th a t th e d efen d a n ts f orce dh i m to pe rform l a b or in v i olati on of th e T h i rteen th A m en dm en t
. W e rej ect t h at argu m en t , becau se requ i ri n g an i n m ate t o perf orm la b o ris n o t in v o lu n ta r ys e rv itu d e u n d e rth e A m e n d m e n t. L ovi ng v. Joh n son , 45 5 F. 3d5 62 , 5 63 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 6)

. The d i st ri ctc o ur tdi d no te r rb y di s m i s s i ng B o w e n ’ s cla im s ch a lle n g in gh is w o r k a s s ig n m e n ts
. S ee Jackson , 864 F. 2d at 1245.N o. 08- 20547

4 N e x t, B o w e n a r g u e s th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r te r r e db yd is m is s in gh is ch a l l en ge s to the disci p l i n a ry p roce ed i n gs b rou gh t ag a i n st h i m . B ow en ass erts t hati nm at e s c an br i ng due pr o c e s s c hall e nge s t o di s c i pl i nar y pr o c e e di ngs a nd pa rol e procedu res in Secti on 198 3 acti on s. H e argu es t h at th e di sci pl i n ary proceedi n gs broug h tagainsthi m w ere i m proper. Th e di st ri ctcourtdi sm i ssed t h ese c h al l en ges on the groun d that t h e pu n i shm en t s B ow e n r e ce ived did not af fecta l ibert y i n t erestp rot ect ed by t h e D u e P roces s C l au se. A s B ow en ha s not addre ssed th e di st r i c tc our t ’ s r at i onal e f ordi sm i ss i ng t hes e c l ai m s, he has
w a iv e dth e c h a lle n g e t o t h e d is m is s a l o f th e s e cla im s . S ee Bri nkm ann v . D al las Cou n ty D epu ty S h erif f A bn er , 8 1 3 F .2d 7 4 4 , 7 4 8 (5t h C ir. 1 9 8 7 ). B ow en ’ s cl a i m s reg a rd i n g a con sp i ra cyw ere dism i sse d

. B ow en ass erts th a t t h e fa c ts a r e co m p le x , b u t h e fin d s it w ith in “r e a s o n a n du n d e r s ta n d a b le t h at al lparti es w ere partof a conspi racy. ” B ow en con te n d s t h at th e di st ri ct
co u rt m isco n str u e dth e fac tu a l alleg a tion s h e se t for th , b u t h e d o e s n o t id e n tify th e a l l eg a ti on s th a t w ere m i scon stru ed

. B ow en do es n ot p oin t us to an y facts t hatt end t o s how an agre em entbet w ee n t he defendant s. H e m er ely ar gues t hat i ti s r eas onabl e t o b eli evet hatt he def endant s w er e par tof a c ons pi r ac y. A ccor din g ly, B ow en ’ s al l egati on s are i n suff i ci en tt o st ate a vi able conspir acy
c la im

. S ee Halev. Harn ey , 7 8 6 F .2d 6 8 8 , 6 9 0 (5t h C ir. 1 9 8 6 ). B ow en ad d i ti on a l l y n otes th a t he raisedcl a i m s u n d er th e A m erican s w i th D i sabi l i t i es A c t(A D A) i n t he di st r i c tc our t , bu th e do es notex pl ai n w hy he w as
e nt i t l e d t o re l i e f

unde rt he A D A. B e c aus e Bowen ha s fail e d t o pr o vi de c i t at i o ns t o t he r e c o r d, autho r i t i e s , o rac o he r e nta r gum e nti n s upp o r to f t he s e c l ai m s , he h a s w a iv e dt h e s e cla im s . S ee F e d

. R

. A p p . P . 2 8 (a )(9 ); Un i t ed S t ate s v. G ou rley , 1 6 8 F .3 d1 6 5 , 1 7 2 n .1 1 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ); Y oh ey v. Col l i ns , 985 F. 2d 222, 224- 25 (5 th C ir. 1 9 9 3 ). Bes i de s t he s e s pe c i f

i cc l ai m s o n t he m e r i t s , Bowen al s o a r gue s t hatt he di stri ctcourtabu sed i t s di scr et i on by ref u si n g t o app oi n tcoun selor, al t erna t ivel y, a p poi n ta speci alm aster
. B ow en ha s f i l ed tw o m ot i on s f

orN o. 08- 20547

5 a p p oin tm en t of

ap p ell a te cou n sel. E xc ep ti on a lci rcu m stan ces a re n ece ssa ryto ju s tifyth e a p p o in tm e n t o f c o u n s e l o r as p e c ia l m a s te rinaciv il rig h ts a c tio n . S ee S i erra C l u b v. C l if

f ord , 2 5 7 F .3 d 4 4 4 , 4 4 6 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ); Ul m er v. Ch an cel lor , 691 F. 2d2 09 , 2 12 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 98 2)

. H e ha s no ts ho w n t hats uc h c i r c um s t an ces exi st
. The di st r i c tc our tc ons equent l y c om m i t t ed no c l earabus e o f di sc r et i on by d e n y in gh is m o tio n s fo ra p p o in tm e n t o f c o u n s e l. S ee C u pitv. Jon es , 835 F. 2d 82, 86 ( 5t h Ci r . 19 87 )

. H i s m o t i o ns f o r ap po i nt m e nt o f c o uns e l o n ap pe al ar e de ni e d. S ee S an t an a v. Ch an d ler , 9 6 1 F .2 d5 1 4 , 5 1 5 -1 6 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ). W h i l e t h i s app ealw as pen di n g, B ow en accum u l ated his sec on d an d thi rd
s tr ik e s p u r s u a n t t o 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (g). B ow en v. S t ew art , 294 F. A pp’ x 987, 989 ( 5t h C i r . 200 8)

. Bow e n i s onc e aga i n w ar ne d t hathe i s b ar r e d f r o m pr o c e e di ng i n for m a pa u peri s p u rsuan tto S ect i on 1 915 w h i l e h e i s i n carcer ated or detai n ed i n any fac i l i t y unl es s he i s und eri m m i nentdangerof s er i ou s physi c ali nj ury. S ee2 8 U .S .C

. § 1 9 1 5 (g). T h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s di sm i ssali s A F F IR M E D . B ow en ’ s m ot i on s f or a p p o i n t me n to f

c o u n s e la r e DE NI ED

.