Opinion ID: 7779
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Work Reassignment

Text: Fowler also argues that the district court erred in dismissing as frivolous his claim that his work reassignment to the hoe squad constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Specifically, Fowler contends that the assignment inflicted unnecessary suffering because of his physical handicap. Fowler further contends that the fact that he was returned to his original work assignment shortly thereafter is irrelevant because he could be placed on the hoe squad in the future. The defendants counter that the return of 12 Fowler to his original assignment is fatal to his Eighth Amendment claim. Prison work requirements that compel inmates to perform physical labor that is beyond their strength, endangers their lives, or causes undue pain may constitute cruel and unusual punishment. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Work which is not cruel and unusual per se may nevertheless violate the Eighth Amendment if prison officials are aware it will significantly aggravate a prisoner's serious medical condition. Jackson v. Cain, 864 F.2d 1235, 1246 (5th Cir. 1989). In addition to the awareness requirement, the prisoner must also establish that the prison officials disregarded the risk to the prisoner by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it. Farmer, 114 S. Ct. at 1984. The allegations in Fowler's original complaint suggest, at most, that he was assigned to the hoe squad in an effort to humiliate and embarrass him. Fowler did not allege in his district court pleadings that the hoe squad assignment caused him unnecessary pain, and he is therefore foreclosed from raising this argument for the first time on appeal. Walker v. Navarro County Jail, 4 F.3d 410, 413 (5th Cir. 1993). Further, Fowler does not allege that a prison official was aware that the assignment would significantly aggravate his medical condition. At any rate, when Fowler brought his medical condition to the attention of Warden Gant after the assignment was made, he was returned to his original laundry room assignment within two 13 weeks. Thus, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Fowler's work reassignment claim as frivolous.