Opinion ID: 71039
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Bivens actions

Text: Walker argues that the district court erred in finding that the defendants actions were not deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. Specifically, Walker argues that Defendants Coil and Raines were deliberately 1 The Magistrate Judge also recommended that the court find it lacked personal jurisdiction over Defendant Ray Holt, the BOP’s Regional Director for the Southeast Region. and dismiss the claim against him without prejudice. The district court adopted his recommendation. Walker does not appeal Holt’s dismissal. 2 Walker did not appeal the dismissal of his APA claim. 4 Case: 08-60994 Document: 00511020908 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/04/2010 No. 08-60994 indifferent to his medical needs because they did not obtain immediate emergency medical care; instead Walker on occasion had to wait a few hours and sometimes until the following morning to receive medical attention. Walker also claims that Defendants Warden Constance Reese, Associate Warden Scott Fisher, Dr. Chambers, and Health Service Administrator Mary Thomas acted with deliberate indifference to his medical needs because the policies they adopted impeded his ability to access adequate and timely medical care. Prison officials violate the Eighth Amendment’s proscription against cruel and unusual punishment when they act with a “deliberate indifference” to the serious medical needs of prisoners. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105 (1976). The Farmer Court defined the test for “deliberate indifference” as follows: [A] prison official cannot be found liable under the Eighth Amendment for denying an inmate humane conditions of confinement unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference. Id. at 837. See also Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 299–303 (1991); Johnson v. Treen, 759 F.2d 1236, 1238 (5th Cir. 1985). This standard “is an extremely high standard to meet.” Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 346 (5th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). The defendants did not act with deliberate indifference. Though Walker may have not received attention as promptly as he desired, or perhaps even as promptly as would be ideal, any substandard care as alleged does not amount to deliberate indifference as defined by the above cases. To the contrary, the record is replete with details of the defendants providing medical care to Walker. Every time Walker sought medical care, it was provided to him either immediately or within a matter of hours. When the staff at FCC Yazoo City thought Walker 5 Case: 08-60994 Document: 00511020908 Page: 6 Date Filed: 02/04/2010 No. 08-60994 needed outside evaluation of his burns, Walker was taken to a hospital. Accepting the evidence in the light most favorable to Walker, it is clear that the defendants did not act with deliberate indifference or adopt policies that precluded Walker from receiving adequate care.3