Court Opinion

ID: 9397585
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-25 17:07:01.121419+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:26.018010
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-20357        Document: 00516763698             Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/25/2023

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

                                      No. 22-20357                         FILED
                                    Summary Calendar                   May 25, 2023
                                    ____________                      Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                           Clerk
   Jesus Eden Garcia,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Captain T. Lee, Laundry Captain; Sergeant Carter, Laundry
   Sergeant; Sergeant Beckham, Assistant Safety Director; K.
   Thornton, Maintenance Supervisor; Doctor Betty Williams,
   UTMB-CMHC-Ombudsman Medical Infirmary; Alma Carter,

                                              Defendants—Appellees.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Southern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:21-CV-116
                     ______________________________

   Before Barksdale, Elrod, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Jesus Eden Garcia, Texas prisoner # 02128847 and proceeding pro se,
   filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Texas Department of
   Criminal Justice Captain Thomas Lee, Sergeant Alma Carter, Sergeant Kori

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-20357       Document: 00516763698          Page: 2     Date Filed: 05/25/2023

                                     No. 22-20357

   Beckham, and Maintenance Supervisor Kevin Thornton, claiming they were
   deliberately indifferent to the hazard posed by a malfunctioning dryer door
   (defective bolt) which fell on Garcia’s head, neck, and back while he was
   working in the prison’s laundry room. Garcia also included Dr. Betty
   Williams, a prison-infirmary doctor, claiming she was deliberately indifferent
   to his medical needs resulting from the incident.
            Garcia challenges the summary judgment awarded defendants, based
   on qualified immunity. (He has abandoned any challenge to the district
   court’s ruling that the Eleventh Amendment barred his official-capacity
   claims against defendants by failing to brief them. See Yohey v. Collins, 985
   F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1994) (“Although we liberally construe the briefs of
   pro se appellants, we also require that arguments must be briefed to be
   preserved.” (citation omitted)).)
            A summary judgment is reviewed de novo. E.g., Austin v. Kroger Tex.,
   L.P., 864 F.3d 326, 328 (5th Cir. 2017). Such judgment is to be granted “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).
            When, as here, however, defendants assert qualified immunity in a
   summary-judgment motion, “the burden then shifts to the plaintiff, who
   must rebut the defense”. Brown v. Callahan, 623 F.3d 249, 253 (5th Cir.
   2010). To overcome qualified immunity, Garcia must show: defendants
   “violated [, inter alia,] his constitutional rights”; and the rights were “clearly
   established at the time of the alleged misconduct”. Cleveland v. Bell, 938 F.3d
   672, 675–76 (5th Cir. 2019).
            The Eighth Amendment requires prison officials “take reasonable
   measures to guarantee the safety of the inmates”. Farmer v. Brennan, 511
   U.S. 825, 832 (1994) (citation omitted). Not every injury suffered by a

                                               2
Case: 22-20357      Document: 00516763698          Page: 3   Date Filed: 05/25/2023

                                    No. 22-20357

   prisoner, however, “translates into” a constitutional violation. Id. at 834.
   Rather, to establish liability, plaintiff must show: a prison condition posed a
   “substantial risk of serious harm” to the inmate; and the prison official
   displayed a “deliberate indifference” to that risk. Id. The official responds
   with deliberate indifference when he: “(1) was aware of facts from which the
   inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists; (2)
   subjectively drew the inference that the risk existed; and (3) disregarded the
   risk”. Cleveland, 938 F.3d at 676 (citation omitted).
          Garcia fails to show defendants Lee, Carter, Beckham, and Thornton
   subjectively drew an inference that the dryer door posed a “substantial risk
   of serious harm” to Garcia. Id. He therefore fails to show the requisite
   deliberate indifference. Accordingly, summary judgment was proper for
   these defendants. See id. at 675–77.
          Regarding Garcia’s claim against Dr. Williams, “[i]n the context of
   medical care, a prison official violates the Eighth Amendment when [she]
   acts with deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical needs”.
   Domino v. Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Just., 239 F.3d 752, 754 (5th Cir. 2001). After
   Garcia was injured by the dryer door, he was taken to the infirmary and a
   hospital, and was diagnosed with a minor head injury and cervical strain. He
   was subsequently examined by Dr. Williams, who prescribed an anti-
   inflammatory drug. He was additionally examined by others in the infirmary,
   who prescribed muscle relaxers and showed him how to perform neck and
   back stretches to aid in his rehabilitation. The record shows Garcia was
   “afforded extensive medical care”; therefore, he fails to show the requisite
   deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Brauner v. Coody, 793
   F.3d 493, 500 (5th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). Accordingly, summary

                                             3
Case: 22-20357    Document: 00516763698          Page: 4   Date Filed: 05/25/2023

                                  No. 22-20357

   judgment was also proper for Dr. Williams. See Cleveland, 938 F.3d at 675–
   76.
         AFFIRMED.

                                           4