Opinion ID: 71718
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Prima Facie Deliberate Indifference Claims

Text: On appeal, Iruegas argues that his uncontested Spears hearing testimony established a prima facie case for his claims. Specifically, Iruegas alleges deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment because Defendants: (1) negligently violated their own policy when escorting him from the showers; (2) delayed seeking medical treatment after his fall; and (3) continuously ignored his serious medical needs. The magistrate judge dismissed these claims as frivolous, and we find that the dismissal was proper. Iruegas alleges that Defendants negligently violated TDCJ policy when only one officer escorted him from the shower without holding his arm. To prove deliberate indifference, we have held that, “[a]t a minimum, the plaintiff must show that prison officials acted with a conscious or callous indifference,” and 5 Case: 09-10471 Document: 00511058214 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/22/2010 No. 09-10471 that “[m]ere negligence . . . [or] neglect” will not suffice. Fielder v. Bosshard, 590 F.2d 105, 107 (5th Cir. 1979). Because nothing in Iruegas’s allegations or testimony suggests that anything other than negligence on the part of Defendants led to his fall, he has failed to state a cognizable constitutional claim on this ground. Iruegas also alleges that Defendants negligently failed to seek medical treatment for him immediately after his fall, in violation of TDCJ policy. We have held that “delay in medical care can only constitute an Eighth Amendment violation if there has been deliberate indifference, which results in substantial harm.” Mendoza v. Lynaugh, 989 F.2d 191, 195 (5th Cir. 1993). Additionally, “[d]eliberate indifference is more than mere negligence in failing to supply medical treatment.” Gibbs v. Grimmette, 254 F.3d 545, 549 (5th Cir. 2001). Because Iruegas has not alleged any additional harm based on the delay in his treatment or anything other than negligence in Defendants’ violation of TDCJ’s policy, we find that he has failed to state a cognizable constitutional claim on this ground. Finally, Iruegas alleges that Defendants’ failure to clean out his cuts, order an MRI, or provide him with more effective pain medication gives rise to a claim of deliberate indifference. We have held that to show deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, a plaintiff must demonstrate that a defendant “‘refused to treat him, ignored his complaints, intentionally treated him incorrectly, or engaged in any similar conduct that would clearly evince a wanton disregard for any serious medical needs.’” Domino v. Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Justice, 239 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir. 2001) (quoting Johnson v. Treen, 759 F.2d 1236, 1238 (5th Cir. 1985)). Additionally, “[u]nsuccessful medical treatment does not give rise to a § 1983 cause of action. . . . Nor does [m]ere negligence, neglect or medical malpractice.” Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Because Defendant’s failure to clean 6 Case: 09-10471 Document: 00511058214 Page: 7 Date Filed: 03/22/2010 No. 09-10471 Iruegas’s cuts, order an MRI after X-rays revealed no broken bones, or prescribe Iruegas stronger pain medication did not “‘unnecessar[ily] and wanton[ly] inflict[] . . . pain repugnant to the conscience of mankind,’” we find that Iruegas has failed to state a cognizable claim on this ground. Tamez v. Murphy, 589 F.3d 764, 770 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting McCormick v. Stalder, 105 F.3d 1059, 1061 (5th Cir. 1997)).