Opinion ID: 152493
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Defendants Ortiz and Baker

Text: Williams does not argue on appeal that Oritz and Baker were authorized to administer medications or to assign him to the infirmary. He argues instead that they were deliberately indifferent by failing to facilitate medical care. “A prison guard is deliberately indifferent if he intentionally denies or delays access to medical care.” Walker v. Butler, 967 F.2d 176, 178 (5th Cir. 1992). According to Williams’ own allegations, Ortiz relayed Williams’ complaints of pain and his request for infirmary convalescence to medical personnel (specifically, the prison duty nurse). In so doing, Ortiz did not wantonly disregard or ignore Williams’ serious medical needs, nor did he intentionally deny or delay his access to medical care. Indeed, Ortiz attempted to facilitate treatment. That Ortiz’s efforts were unsuccessful does not mean that he was deliberately indifferent. See Gobert, 463 F.3d at 346; Johnson v. Treen, 759 F.2d 1236, 1238 (5th Cir. 1985). Similarly, with respect to the claims against Baker, Williams’ own factual allegations establish that his complaints of pain and need to be transferred to the infirmary were relayed to the duty nurse on May 19th—the same day he alleges that Baker intentionally denied or delayed his access to medical treatment. Because his complaints were in fact relayed to a medical professional, under Williams’ own version of the facts, Williams has not shown that Baker impeded or denied medical treatment.