Court Opinion

ID: 9404003
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-22 00:00:42.619832+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:10.696767
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-11202    Document: 00516795410        Page: 1    Date Filed: 06/21/2023

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit
                               ____________
                                                                  United States Court of Appeals
                                                                           Fifth Circuit
                                No. 22-11202
                              Summary Calendar                           FILED
                              ____________                           June 21, 2023
                                                                    Lyle W. Cayce
   Patricio Estrada,                                                     Clerk

                                                         Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                     versus

   Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Correctional Institutions
   Division, Individually and in Official Capacities; Mr. Castillo, Warden
   of the Daniels Unit, Individually and in Official Capacities; Ms.
   Carpenter, Daniels Unit Psychologist, Individually and in Official
   Capacities; Ms. Cogburn, Daniels Unit Medical Coordinator, Individually
   and in Official Capacities; Mr. Thompson, Daniels Unit Sergeant,
   Individually and in Official Capacities; Mr. Perez, Daniels Unit Sergeant,
   Individually and in Official Capacities; Mr. Tapscott, Daniels Unit
   Sergeant, Individually and in Official Capacities; Ms. Calloway, Daniels
   Unit Sergeant, Individually and in Official Capacities,

                                           Defendants—Appellees.
                  ______________________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Texas
                           USDC No. 5:20-CV-30
                 ______________________________

   Before Smith, Southwick, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Case: 22-11202         Document: 00516795410             Page: 2      Date Filed: 06/21/2023

                                          No. 22-11202

   Per Curiam: *
          Patricio Estrada, Texas inmate # 2089041, sued various employees of
   the Texas Department of Criminal Justice under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging
   that the defendants violated his rights under the First, Fourth, Eighth, and
   Fourteenth Amendments as well as the Americans with Disabilities Act
   (ADA) and Rehabilitation Act (RA), either directly or in a supervisory
   capacity, by denying him medical care and reasonable accommodations in
   light of his physical disabilities, failing to protect him, exposing him to cold
   and unsanitary conditions, retaliating against him, and placing him in
   disciplinary segregation. The district court permitted Estrada’s ADA and
   RA claims and his Eighth Amendment claims of failure to provide housing
   accommodations to proceed but dismissed the rest of his claims for failure to
   state a claim and entered final judgment thereon.                      See 28 U.S.C.
   § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).                   The court also denied
   Estrada’s request to add the Texas Tech Medical Department as a
   defendant. Estrada now appeals the adverse rulings.
          Estrada fails to show error under the applicable de novo standard of
   review. See Black v. Warren, 134 F.3d 732, 734 (5th Cir. 1998). As explained
   in detail by the district court and magistrate judge, Estrada’s various district
   court pleadings contain insufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state
   a plausible claim for relief on any appealed ground or to draw the reasonable
   inference that the defendants are liable, either directly or as a supervisor, for
   any alleged misconduct. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
   Estrada further fails to show that the district court abused its discretion by
   denying his request to add Texas Tech as a defendant. See Lockett v. Gen.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

                                                    2
Case: 22-11202     Document: 00516795410          Page: 3   Date Filed: 06/21/2023

                                   No. 22-11202

   Fin. Loan Co. of Downtown, 623 F.2d 1128, 1132 (5th Cir. 1980). Accordingly,
   the judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                            3