Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinion should not * be publishe d an d 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

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 40223 S u m m ary C al en da r
DON W AYNE COOP ER,
Pl ai nt i f f - Appe l l ant

v. GA RY J OH N SON ; DO U GLAS DR ETKE ; RI CH ARD TRI N CI ; M I CH AEL J M E G N A ; C H U KW U M AA N A D U A KA , D oct or; JU D YN O R R IS, T h e D i rect or o f Q u a lityS e r v ic e s /R is k M a n a g e m e n t, U T M B -C M C H ,
D efen da n t s - A pp el l ees

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i tedS tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or t h e Sou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 3: 04- c v- 00553
B e fo r e K IN G , D AV IS , a n dS T E W A R T , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R IA M: * DonW a y ne Co o p e r( “ Co o p e r” ) , afe d e r a lp r i s o ne rp r o c ee di ng pro se , a p p ea l s th e d i stri ct cou rt’ s gra n t of su m m a r yj u d gm en t t o d efen d a n ts United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December

1, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 40223

2 Ch u k wu m a An a d u a k a ( “An a d u a k a ” ) a n d J u d y No r r i s ( “ No r r i s ” ) o n h i s 4 2 U. S
. C. § 1 9 8 3 c l a i m s . W e AF FI RM
. I . B A CK GRO UND C oo peri s i ncar c er at ed a t th e W ayne Sc ot tU ni tw i t hi n t he Texas D e p a r t m 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 (“T D C J ”). D ur i ng t he r e l e va ntt i m e pe r i o d, A n ad u ak a w as aPr ac t i c e M ana ge rf o rt he U nive r s i t y o f

Te xa s M e di c alBr anc h- Cor r e c t i o nalM ana ge d H e al t h Care ( “ U TM B- CM H C” )
. I n t hi s no n- phy s i c i an r o l e , he m e tw i t h i nm at e s r e ga r di ng th eir U T M B -C M H C m ed i ca lpr oce d u res a n dsu p erv i sed su p p ort staff to det er m i ne w het herthe U TM B

- C M H C pol i c es w er e b ei ng f ol l ow ed. N or r i s w as t h e D i rect or of

U t i l i zati on M an agem en tforU T M B

- C M H C , w h ere sh e revi ew ed in m a te re q u e s ts fo rs p e c ia ltym e d ic a l s e r v ic e s . In 199 7, w h i l e C ooper w as servi n g h i s s en t en ce, hi s l ef tear w as operated
on t w i c e t o r em ove pol yps . A f t er hi s sur ger y, C oo per w as di agnos ed w i th t i n n i t u s i n hi s l ef

tear bu t h i s ri gh t ear w as st i l lf u n ct i on al
. H e w as rel eased on pa r o l e i n 1 99 9. W hi l e o n par o l e , a pr iva t e phys i c i an f i t t e d hi m w i t h a he ar i ng a idto a lle v ia te th e lo u drin g in gca u s e db yth e tin n itu s . In D ece m b er 2 0 0 1 , C oo p er w a s i m p ri son ed f or p a role viol a ti on s. In late 200 2, hi s h eari n g ai d broke an d coul d n otb e rep ai red. C ooper t h en ha d a thi rd
s ur ge r y o n hi s l e f

te ari n Janua r y 20 03 t o r e pa i raho l e i n hi s e ar dr um . Af t e rt he t h i r d s u r g e r y h e d e v e l o p e d s e v e r a l i n fe c t i o n s i n h i s l e f t e a r d u r i n g 2 0 0 3
. As D i rect orof

U t i l i zat i on M anagem ent , N or r i s r evi ew ed Cooper ’ s m edi c al
c o m pl ai nt s a nd r e ferr e d t he m f o rt he r e quir e d s pe c i al i z e d t r e at m e nta nd
s u r g e r y . C oo p e rr e q u e s te da h ea ri n g a i dto rel i ev e th e ti n n i tu s i n h i s l eft ea r. In Ju l y 200 3, an au di ol ogy exa m perf orm ed on C ooper show ed that h e d i d n otm eetN o. 09- 40223

In September 2007 , after the appeal was docketed but b eforewe rendered decision, 1 a second audiology exam performed on Co oper showed that, while his hearin g had worsene d slightly s in c e the 200 3 audiology exam, he still did not qualifyfor the TDCJHearing Aid Pro gra m. 3 th e c r ite ri a f

or a h ea ri n g a i dbe ca u se h i s h ea ri n g w a s sti l lf u n cti on a li n bo th
ears. Pu rsuan tt o T D C J poli cy, C ooper f i l ed gri evan ces regardi n g t h e deci si on n ott o i ssue a h eari n ga id . T h e gri evan ces w ere di sm i ssed, i n part becau se Coo pe r ’ s he ar i ng w as f unct i on ala nd h e ha d r e c e ive d m e di c alt r e at m e nt ad dressi n g h i s nu m erous ear i n fect i on s. C ooper al so f i l ed an i n f

orm alrequest
w ith A n a d u a k a , p u r s u a n t to T D C J p o lic y , to d is c u s s h is r e q u e s t fo r a h e a r in ga id
a n d for cosm eti c su rg ery on h i s l eft ea r. A n a d u a k a do es n ot reca l lm ee ti n g w i th C ooper. C ooper avers, h ow ever, t h at A n ad u ak a i n f orm ed hi m t h at he w as not e lig ib le fo rth e h e a r in ga idb e c a u s e h e d idn o t m e e t t h e T D C J cr ite r ia
. I n Se pt e m be r2 00 4, Coo pe rf i l e d s ui tpur s uantt o 4 2 U
. S. C. § 1 98 3, s e e ki ng c o m pe ns at o r y andpun i t ive da m ag e s , r e c o ns t r uc t ive s ur ge r y, a nd ahea r i ng ai d. Coo pe ra l l e ge s t hatD e fe nda nt s w e r e del ibe r at e l y i ndif fe r e ntt o hi s s e r i o us m e di c alne e ds w he n t he y r e f us e d t o give hi m a hea r i ng ai d t o re l i e ve t he t i nni t us i n hi s l ef

tea r , i n vi ol at i on o f

t he E i ght h A m endm ent . H e c ont ends t hathe w as d en i ed a h ea ri n g a i dbe ca u se T D C J po l i cyreq u i res im p a i red h ea ri n g in bo th
ear s. H e f

urt heral l ege s t hatthe deni alof a hear i ng ai d w as s ol ely a f i nanci al deci si on an d consti t u t es del iberate i n di f ference t o hi s s eri ou s m edi calneed s. O n N ovem ber 21, 200 6, t h e di st ri ctcourtdi sm i ssed t h e case as f rivol ou s. C ooper t i m el y ap pea l ed. W e af f i rm ed the di st ri ctcou rti n part, bu trem an ded 1 t h e non - f

rivol ou s i ssue regardi n g “w h e th er t h e provi si on of a hea ri n g ai d i s a s e r i o us m e di c alne e d a nd whet he rt he r e s po nde nt s w e r e del ibe r at e l y i ndif fe r e nt to this n ee d
. ” Cooper v. Joh n son , 255 F
. A pp ’ x 891 , 892 ( 5th C i r. 200 7) (per c ur i am )
. On r e m and , Anadua ka and N o r r i s w e r e o r de r e d t o f i l e a n a ns w e r ; t heN o. 09- 40223

4 r e m a in in gd e fe n d a n ts w e r e d is m is s e d
. In th e ira n s w e r , A n a d u a k a a n dN o r r is pl eade d qual i f

i ed i m m uni t y and E l eve nt h A m endm enti m m uni t y as af f i r m at ive defenses. Th e di st ri ctcourtordered defen da n t s t o fil e a di sposi t ive m ot i on on t h e i ssue of

im m u n i t y. A n ad u ak a an d N orri s t h en f i l ed a m ot i on f

or s u m m ary j u dg m en t . Th e di st ri ctcourtgran t ed the m ot i on on F ebru ary 3, 200 9. C ooper appeal s t hi s r ul i ng. I I . DI S CU S S I ON W e r e vi e w a di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s gr ant o f s um m ar y j udg m e nt de no vo , a pplyi ng th e s a m e s ta n d a r d s a s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. R i verw ood Int ’lCorp. v. E mploye rs Ins.
of W aus au , 42 0 F
. 3 d3 7 8 , 3 8 2 (5th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ). S u m m a ryju d gm en t is ap p rop ri a te

“ i f t he pl e ad i ngs , t he di s c o ve r y anddi s c l o sure m at e r i al s o n f i l e , a nd a ny af fi d a vits s how t hatt her e i s no ge nui ne i ss ue as t o a ny m at er i alfac tand t hat th e m ov a n t is en ti tl ed to jud gm en t as a m a tter of l a w . ” F ED . R. C IV . P. 5 6(c )
. The
m ovi n g pa rt y h as t h e bu rden of dem on st rat i n g t h at there a re no gen u i n e i ssues o f m a te r ia l fa c t in d is p u te . Celo texCo rp . v . Ca tre tt , 4 7 7 U .S . 3 1 7 , 3 2 3 (1 9 8 6 ). W e “v ie w th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o s t fa v o r a b le to th e n o n m o v a n t, d r a w in ga ll
rea son a b l e i n feren ces i n th e no n m ov a n t’ s fav or.” R i verw ood , 420 F. 3d at382 (cita tion om itted ). Sec t i on 1983 per m i t s a privat e ri ghtof act i on f orvi ol at i ons of

fede r all aw b y th ose actingu n d er th e c o lo ro f state law
. 42 U
. S
. C
. § 19 8 3
. D elib era te i ndif fe r e nc e t o pr i s o ne r s ’s e r i o us m e di c alne e ds vi o l at e s t he Ei ght h Am e ndm e nt proh ibi t i on againstcr u elan d u n u su alpu n i shm en tan d st ates a cl ai m un der § 1 9 8 3
. Este lle v. G a m b le , 4 2 9 U .S . 9 7 (1 9 7 6 ); Har r i s v . Hegm an , 1 9 8 F. 3 d153, 159 ( 5th C i r. 199 9)
. To sh ow t h e const i t u t i on ali nj u ry al l eged h ere, C ooper m u st sho w , ata m i ni m um , t hatA naduak a and N or r i s exhibi t ed de l ib era teN o. 09- 40223

5 in d iffe r e n c e to h is s e r io u s m e d ic a l n e e d s . Wi lson v. S ei t er , 501 U
. S. 294, 297 (1 9 9 1 ). Apri son of

f i ci ali s not l i a b le f

or t h e den i alof

m edi calt reat m en tt o a pri soner un der t h e del iberate i n di f ference st an da rd u n l ess t h e of f i ci al kn ow s of
a n dd is r e g a r d s a n e x c e s s iv e ris k to in m a te h e a lth o rs a fe ty . Far m e rv . Br e nnan , 5 1 1 U .S . 8 2 5 , 8 3 7 (1 9 9 4 ); R e e v e s v . Col l i ns , 2 7 F .3d 1 7 4 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 4 ). “D elib era te i n d i ff

ere n ce is an ex trem ely h i gh stan d a r d t o m ee t. ” D om i no v. Te xasD e

p’ tof Cr i m . Ju st i ce , 2 3 9 F .3 d7 5 2 , 7 5 6 (5 t h C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). Ad e fe n d a n t ’s
c o n d u c t m u s t r is e “t o t h e l e v e l o f e g r e g io u s co n d u c t.” G o b er t v. Ca ld w ell , 463 F
. 3d 339 , 351 ( 5th C i r. 200 6)
. C ooper m u strai se a facti ssue as to w h et h er p r is o n o ffic ia ls “r e fu s e d to tr e a t h im , ig n o r e d h is c o m p la in ts , i n t e n tio n a lly tr e a te dh im in c o r r e c tly , o re n g a g e din a n ys im ila rco n d u c t t h a t w o u ldcle a r ly
ev i n ce a w a n ton d i sreg a rdf or a n y se ri ou s m ed i ca ln ee d s. ” Joh n son v. Tree n , 759 F. 2d 1236, 1238 ( 5t h C i r . 1985)
. An i nm at e’ s di sa gr ee m entw i t h m edi c al t reat m en tdoes not evi n ce del iberate i n di f ference t o hi s s eri ou s m edi calneed s. S ee G obert , 4 6 3 F .3 da t 3 4 6
. In th is c a s e , th e e v id e n c e d e m o n s tr a te s th a t n e ith e rA n a d u a k a n o rN o r r is
w er e de l iber at ely i ndi f fer entt o Coope r ’ s se r i ous m ed i ca ln ee ds. Af t erhe w as i nc ar c e r at e d i n 2 00 1, Coo pe rr e c e ive d nu m e r o us t r e at m e nt s f o re ari nfe c t i o ns an d other ai l m en t s r el ated t o hi s l ef tear. N orri s, as D ire ctor of U t i l i zati on M an agem e nt , r e vi e w e d a nd a ppr oved C ooper’ s r equ est s f or s peci al i zed ear, nose, and t hro ats ervi c es and r ef er r ed hi m fort he t r eat m ent s. The 2003 audi ol ogi c al
e x a m in ati on reveal ed that C ooper’ s heari n g w as st i l lf u n ct i on ali n both ears d e sp i te the ti n n i tu s; the refore , h e w a s n ot eli gible f or a h ea ri n g a i d
. Part i c ul ar l y i n l i ghtof t he t es tr es ul t s, t he e vi denc e fai l s t o de m ons t r at e t hat N o r r is e x h ib ite d w a n to n d is r e g a r d o f C o o p e r ’ s n e e d s . Cf
. T aylorv. Tu rner , 884N o. 09- 40223

6 F
. 2d 108 8, 109 0 ( 8th C i r. 198 9 ) (n o del iberate i n di f ference w h ere pri soner r eceived au di ol ogi caleval u ati on f or heari n g i m pa i rm en tan d w asde ni e d he ari ng ai d). M oreover, C oo p e r w rot e t o A n ad u ak a as pa rtof t h e gri evan ce proc ess reg a rd i n g th e d en i a lof a i d
. A s P ra cti ce M a n a ge r, A n a d u a k a h a dn o a u th ority to d ia g n o s e C o o p e r ’ s m e d ic a l co n d itio n o rto d e te r m in e w h e th e rC o o p e rco u ld
r e c e ive ahe ar i ng ai d. I ns t e ad , hi s r o l e w as t o r e vi e w the m e di c alr e c o r d a nd
ex p l a i n ap p l i ca ti on of U T M B -C M H C ’ s p oli ci es to inm a tes. T h e rec ord refl ects t hathe f

ul f i l l ed t hi s dut y. As w i t h N or r i s, the evi denc e fai l s t o de m ons t r at e t hat A n ad u ak a exh ibi t ed w an t on di sregard of C ooper’ s need s. I I I . C ONC L US I ON F or a l lthe f

ore go i n g re a son s, w e a ff i rm the distri ct cou rt.