Opinion ID: 1704806
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Claims Against Associate Warden Ligtenberg and Defendants Jacobson and Ziegler.

Text: Hafner claims that Defendants Ligtenberg, Jacobson and Ziegler were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs as they did not release him from a job training program in which he had enrolled at the Springfield Correctional Facility. In Jackson v. Cain, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals explained that assignment to working conditions and access to medical care constitute two separate claims, Jackson, 864 F.2d 1235, 1246-47 (5th Cir.1989) (reversing grant of summary judgment where pro se defendant had been denied access to his medical records and thus, could not provide the medical records to substantiate his claim that his work significantly aggravated his condition and caused him injury). The Fifth Circuit set forth a two-part test to determine whether assignment to working conditions constitutes deliberate indifference to a serious medical need: 1) The work must significantly aggravate the medical condition, causing injury to plaintiff; and 2) Officials knew of the specific danger because of the physical condition and yet ignored it. Jackson, 864 F.2d at 1247. Hafner asserts no facts which would rise to deliberate indifference on the part of these three Defendants. First, he admits that he voluntarily enrolled in the training program; unlike Jackson this is not a situation where Defendants assigned a prisoner to hard physical labor. Second, in his affidavit, Hafner admits that Jacobson told him he could be released from the vocational program if he obtained a medical release; there is no medical release in the record. Hafner admitted in his deposition that neither Jacobson nor Ziegler was involved in any of his medical care decisions, nor did he know of any involvement by Ligtenberg. Thus, there is no showing that the Defendants knew of a specific danger that the work would aggravate Hafner's medical condition. Third, Hafner does not dispute that the Defendants made special accommodations at Springfield so he would not have to lift heavy objects in class. Finally, Hafner provided no medical evidence that the program significantly aggravated his medical condition and caused him injury. Thus, he failed to bring forth any evidence which would show a constitutional deprivation under the Jackson test. Viewing the facts most favorably to Hafner, there remain no genuine issues of material fact; Defendants Ligtenberg, Jacobson and Ziegler were entitled to summary judgment as matter of law.