P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 40286 Su m m ar yC al endar
J ER EMY L EE C ONL I N , Pl ai nt i f f

- Appe l l ant

v. RI CK T HALER, DI RE CT O R, TEXAS D EP AR TM EN T O F CR I M I N AL J U STI CE, CORRECT I ONAL I NST I TUT I ONS DIVI S I ON; T EXAS CORRE CT I ONAL I NDUS T RI ES , aDiv i s i o no f T D C J

- C I D L o gi s t ic s D iv i s i o n ; B RA D L IV I N G S T ON, I n d iv i d u a l l ya n di n h i s Of f i c i a lC a p a c i t ya s E x e c u t iv e Dir e c t o rT DC J

- CI D ,

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 t h e E aster n D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 1: 08- C V

- 175
B ef ore D AV IS, SM ITH , an d D E N N IS, C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * J e r e m yL e e C o n l i n , T e x a s p r is o n e r#0 1 2 9 3 7 2 4 , a p p e a ls th e d is m is s a l, p u r s u a n t t o 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (e )(2 )(B ), a s fr iv o lo u s a n dfo r fa ilu r e to s ta te acla im of his 42 U
. S
. C
. § 19 8 3 civilri gh ts l a w su i t asse rti n g a viol a ti on of h i s E i gh th A m en dm en tri gh t s as a r esul tof ha vi n g t o sl eep on a n un sup portive m att ress . United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 16, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 40286

2 T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’s d is m is s a l is r e v ie w e dd e n o v o , a c c e p t in ga llo f C o n li n ’s
a lle g a tio n s a s tr u e . S ee G eiger v. Jow ers , 4 0 4 F .3d 3 7 1 , 3 7 3 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). Conl i n c o nt e nds t hatt he di s m i s s alof hi s co m pl ai ntw as e r r o rb e c aus e he has s t at e d a c l ai m unde r t he Ei ghth Am e ndm e nt . H e al s o s e e ks t o r ai s e , f o rt he first ti m e on a p p ea l , n ew state-l a w tort cl a i m s for n eg l i ge n c e a n d pr od u cts l i a b i l i ty, as w ellas a n ew cla i m f or sta te-crea tedda n ge r u n d er th e E i gh th Am e ndm e nt . Thes e newl y r ai s e d c l ai m s w i l lnotb e c o ns i de r e d. Ste w artG lass & Mi r r o r, I

nc . v . U
. S. A u t o G l as s D i s c o untCe nt e rs , I nc . , 200 F. 3d 307, 316- 17 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ); see als o L everet t e v. L ou i svi l le La d d er Co. , 1 8 3 F
. 3 d33 9 , 34 2 ( 5 th C ir. 1 9 9 9 ). An i nm at e m us t s at i s f y t w o r e quir e m e nt s , c o ns i s t i ng o f a n o bj e c t ive a nd
s u bje c tiv e co m p o n e n t, in o r d e rto e s ta b lis h aco n d itio n s -o f-c o n fin e m e n t c la im
u n d e rth e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t. D a v is v
. S co tt , 157 F
. 3d100 3, 100 6 ( 5th C i r. 1 9 9 8 )
. “ [ T ]h e d e p r iv a tio n a lle g e dm u s t b e , o bje c tiv e ly , su ffic ie n tlys e r io u s ; a pri son of

f i ci al ’ s actor om i ssi on m u stres u l ti n t h e den i alof t h e m i n i m alcivi l i zed
m ea su res o f l i fe’ s n ece ssit i es.” Palm er v. Joh n son , 193 F
. 3d 346 , 352 (5 th C i r. 19 99 ) (i nt e r nalq uo t at i o n m ar ks a nd c i t at i o n om i t t e d)
. “ [ E] xt r e m e de pr iva t i o ns a re re q u ire d ” in or d e r to m e e t th e o b je c t iv e c o m p o n e n t of a
c o n d itio n s -o f-c o n fin e m e n t c la im
. D a v is , 157 F
. 3dat 100 6 (i n t erna lqu ot ati on m ar ks a nd c i t at i o n o m i t t e d)
. I n o r de rt o s ati s f y t he s ubj e c t ive c o m po ne nt , t he pri soner m u st est abli sh t h at t h e defenda n t s “ act ed w i t h del iberate i n di f ference to h i s con d i ti on s of con fi n em en t. ” Harper v. S h ow ers , 174 F
. 3d7 16, 7 20 ( 5th C i r. 1 9 9 9 ) (foo tn o te om itted ). C o n lin ’ s E ig h th A m e n d m e n t c la im w a s p r o p e r lyd is m is s e db e c a u s e h e d id
n o t a ll e g e fac ts e sta b li sh in gth e ob jec tiv e co m p o n e n to f aco n d iti o n s-o fconfi n em en tcl ai m . A l t h ou gh he ar g u e s th a t t h e l oss of sl eep h e al l eged dem ons t r a t e dad e p r iv a t i o n o f ab a s i ch um a n ne e d , Co nli n ha s n o ts ho wn an e gr e gi o us de pr iva t i o n o f am i ni m all i fe ne c e s s i t y t hatw as s o b as e o ri nhum ane a s to g iv e ris e to aco n s tit u tio n a l v io la tio n . S ee Palm er , 1 9 3 F .3 d a t 3 5 2 ; seealsoN o. 09- 40286

3 No v a k v . B e to , 45 3 F. 2d6 61 , 6 65

- 66 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 97 1)
. I ns t e ad , Conli n c o m pl ai ns o f m e r e d is c o m fo r t, w h ic h is in s u ffic ie n t. Se e R ho de s v . Chapm an , 452 U
. S. 337, 3 4 9 (1 9 8 1 ). T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s ju d g m e n t is a ffir m e d
. T h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s di sm i ssal of t h e i n st an t l aw sui t coun t s as a “ st ri ke” f or p u r p o s e s o f 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (g). Se eAde pegb a v . Ham m o ns , 103 F. 3d 38 3, 3 8 5 -8 7 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). C o n lin h a s o n e p r e v io u s s tr ik e . See Conl i n v. Lange , N o. 07- 20164 ( 5t h C i r . 2007) (unp ubl i she d)
. Acc or di ngl y, C onl i n i s c a u t i oned that i f h e a c c u mu l a t e s t h r e e s t r i k e s u n d e r§ 1 9 1 5 ( g) , h e ma yn o tp r o c e e di n f o r ma pa u peri s i n an y civi lact i on or ap pea lf i l ed w h i l e he 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 ous physi c ali nj ury. S ee§ 1 9 1 5 (g). AF F I RMED; T HRE E- S T RI KE S W AR NI NG I S S UED
.