Court Opinion

ID: 9379225
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-15 00:00:32.315734+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:56.666656
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-20189        Document: 00516676711             Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/14/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________                  United States Court of Appeals
                                                                            Fifth Circuit

                                      No. 22-20189                        FILED
                                    Summary Calendar                March 14, 2023
                                    ____________                     Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                          Clerk
   Juan Daniel Cano,

                                                                   Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Karen Faust; Mark Varner; Jaime Williams; Gail L.
   Thompson; James Jones; Charles James; Officer Perkins,

                                              Defendants—Appellees.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Southern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:19-CV-317
                     ______________________________

   Before Smith, Southwick, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Juan Daniel Cano, Texas prisoner # 1705654, appeals the dismissal of
   his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against two officials employed by the Texas
   Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) and three officials employed by the
   University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB). Cano’s complaint stems
   from his allegation that UTMB physician’s assistant Karen Faust assaulted
         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-20189       Document: 00516676711           Page: 2     Date Filed: 03/14/2023

                                      No. 22-20189

   him in the course of performing a rectal exam after he complained of rectal
   bleeding.     Cano’s complaint alleged claims of retaliation, deliberate
   indifference, failure to supervise or train, use of excessive force, and failure
   to intervene. He now challenges the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule
   12(b)(6) dismissal of his claims against TDCJ employees James Jones and
   Charles James, the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of his retaliation claim against
   Faust, and the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of
   UTMB employees Faust, Mark Varner, and Jaime Williams on qualified
   immunity grounds. Cano does not challenge the dismissal of his claims
   against UTMB employee Gail L. Thompson.
            We review a dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule
   12(b)(6) de novo. Morin v. Caire, 77 F.3d 116, 120 (5th Cir. 1996). Under
   that rule, a complaint must be dismissed if it fails to “set forth enough facts
   to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Childers v. Iglesias, 848
   F.3d 412, 413 (5th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
            The district court correctly found that Cano failed to allege more than
   a de minimis retaliatory act that would be sufficient to support a retaliation
   claim against James. See Morris v. Powell, 449 F.3d 682, 684-86 (5th Cir.
   2006); Brunson v. Nichols, 875 F.3d 275, 277 (5th Cir. 2017). We also agree
   that he failed to plead facts showing it was plausible that Faust had the
   requisite intent to retaliate against him or that the alleged adverse act would
   not have occurred but for Faust’s retaliatory intent. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
   U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 1166 (5th Cir. 1995);
   McDonald v. Steward, 132 F.3d 225, 231 (5th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, the
   court did not err in dismissing Cano’s retaliation claims for failure to state a
   claim.
            Nor did it err in dismissing Cano’s claims that Jones and James were
   deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs by allegedly failing to

                                            2
Case: 22-20189      Document: 00516676711          Page: 3   Date Filed: 03/14/2023

                                    No. 22-20189

   provide him with medical providers capable of providing proper treatment.
   Cano did not allege that Jones or James played any role in hiring medical
   providers or in determining who would treat him, and Cano’s allegations
   reflect a mere disagreement with the medical treatment he received, which
   cannot form the basis of a deliberate indifference claim. See Gobert v.
   Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 346 (5th Cir. 2006). His claim that James and Jones
   failed to supervise or train their subordinates was likewise properly dismissed
   because Cano failed to plead facts suggesting any connection between the
   alleged failure to supervise or train and any violation of his rights. See
   Goodman v. Harris Cnty., 571 F.3d 388, 395 (5th Cir. 2009).
          With respect to the district court’s granting of the UTMB
   defendants’ summary judgment motion, our review is de novo. See Hyatt v.
   Thomas, 843 F.3d 172, 176 (5th Cir. 2016). Summary judgment is appropriate
   “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact
   and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ.
   P. 56(a). The doctrine of qualified immunity “alters the usual summary
   judgment burden of proof” in that the plaintiff has the burden of showing
   that a defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity. Valderas v. City of
   Lubbock, 937 F.3d 384, 389 (5th Cir. 2019). In determining whether qualified
   immunity applies, we review: (1) whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation
   of a constitutional right; and (2) if so, whether the right was clearly
   established at the time of the violation. Brumfield v. Hollins, 551 F.3d 322,
   326 (5th Cir. 2008).
          Cano’s complaint alleged that Faust used excessive force by inserting
   an unknown object into his rectum three times during a rectal exam. The
   summary judgment evidence submitted by the UTMB defendants reflects
   that Faust performed a single-digit rectal exam on Cano because he
   complained of rectal bleeding; the evidence does not support Cano’s
   assertion that Faust inserted any other item into his rectum. See Carnaby v.

                                         3
Case: 22-20189      Document: 00516676711           Page: 4     Date Filed: 03/14/2023

                                     No. 22-20189

   City of Houston, 636 F.3d 183, 187 (5th Cir. 2011). Moreover, Cano has not
   pointed to any summary judgment evidence supporting his assertion that the
   rectal exam was clearly excessive or that the excessiveness was clearly
   unreasonable. See Tarver v. City of Edna, 410 F.3d 745, 751 (5th Cir. 2005).
   Cano has also failed to show that he had a “clearly established” right to
   refuse the rectal exam at the time of the alleged violation. Brumfield, 551 F.3d
   at 326; see Sama v. Hannigan, 669 F.3d 585, 593 (5th Cir. 2012). The district
   court therefore did not err in granting summary judgment for Faust with
   respect to Cano’s use of excessive force claim. We will not consider Cano’s
   claim, raised for the first time on appeal, that Faust’s failure to obtain his
   consent for the exam violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process right.
   See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999).
          We also ascertain no error in the district court’s grant of summary
   judgment on Cano’s failure to intervene claim against Varner, a nurse who
   was present during the rectal exam. Because Cano’s rights were not violated
   during the rectal exam, Cano has failed to make the required showing that
   Varner failed to prevent a violation of his rights. See Whitley v. Hanna, 726
   F.3d 631, 646 (5th Cir. 2013).
          Cano has also not shown that the court erred in granting summary
   judgment in favor of the UTMB defendants on his deliberate indifference
   claim. The summary judgment evidence belies Cano’s assertions that he was
   not treated for his thyroid and digestive issues, and his allegations amount to
   a disagreement with treatment, which is not actionable under the Eighth
   Amendment. See Gobert, 463 F.3d at 346. Finally, the court correctly granted
   summary judgment in Williams’s favor with respect to Cano’s claims of
   failure to train or supervise, as he did not make the required showing of an
   underlying violation of his rights that was caused by the alleged failure to train
   or supervise. See Goodman, 571 F.3d at 395.

                                           4
Case: 22-20189   Document: 00516676711         Page: 5   Date Filed: 03/14/2023

                                No. 22-20189

         Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                     5