Court Opinion

ID: 9927422
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-27 01:00:42.869092+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:35.885906
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-30158        Document: 00517046106             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/26/2024

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                  United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                  Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________                               FILED
                                                                          January 26, 2024
                                      No. 23-30158
                                                                           Lyle W. Cayce
                                    Summary Calendar
                                                                                Clerk
                                    ____________

   Karl E. Thibodeaux,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Marcus Meyers; Rodney Slay; Donnie Bordelon; Samuel
   Johnson; James Longino; Nikki Chenevert; Brent
   Thompson; Spencer Launey; Laura Deselle; Benjamin
   Maddie; R. Lavalais; Wayne Millus,

                                              Defendants—Appellees.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Louisiana
                              USDC No. 1:20-CV-1630
                     ______________________________

   Before Smith, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Karl E. Thibodeaux, Louisiana prisoner # 489409, appeals the district
   court’s order granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and
   dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit wherein he alleged that the defendants

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-30158      Document: 00517046106           Page: 2    Date Filed: 01/26/2024

                                     No. 23-30158

   violated his Eighth Amendment rights by exposing him to environmental
   tobacco smoke (“ETS”), or second-hand smoke. He argues that the
   magistrate judge exhibited bias and improperly gave the defendants legal
   advice in a discovery ruling, the motion for summary judgment was granted
   prematurely, and the defendants were deliberately indifferent to a serious risk
   to his medical health. He has also filed a motion for leave to supplement his
   reply brief, which is GRANTED.
          As for his claim of bias, Thibodeaux has not shown that the district
   court committed reversible plain error. See Wright v. Ford Motor Co., 508 F.3d
   263, 272 (5th Cir. 2007). The magistrate judge’s comment, taken in context,
   appears to be nothing more than the magistrate judge exercising his inherent
   authority “to manage [his] own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and
   expeditious disposition of cases.” Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626,
   630–31 (1962). Furthermore, the comment does not reveal an opinion based
   on an extrajudicial source or demonstrate such a high degree of antagonism
   so as to make a fair judgment impossible. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S.
   540, 555 (1994). This contention is without merit.
          Thibodeaux’s complaint that consideration of the motion for
   summary judgment was premature is based on three broad arguments: (1) he
   was still actively seeking necessary discovery and the discovery deadline had
   not passed; (2) he had filed several protective motions that the district court
   did not rule on prior to deciding the motion for summary judgment; and
   (3) despite efforts to preserve his rights, he was denied the opportunity to file
   a response to the motion for summary judgment.
          Once a motion for summary judgment has been filed, a nonmoving
   party may seek a continuance if he believes that additional discovery is
   necessary to respond to the motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d);
   International Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally’s, Inc., 939 F.2d 1257, 1266 (5th Cir.

                                          2
Case: 23-30158       Document: 00517046106         Page: 3   Date Filed: 01/26/2024

                                    No. 23-30158

   1991). Review of the record demonstrates that the logbooks requested by
   Thibodeaux do not contain any information related to the defendants’
   actions to enforce the smoking ban and the Raymond Laborde Correctional
   Center institutional policy prohibiting curing and smoking smokeless
   tobacco. Furthermore, the defendants offered to enter a stipulation to that
   effect. Therefore, Thibodeaux has not demonstrated that the denial of
   additional discovery under Rule 56(d) constituted an abuse of discretion. See
   Stearns Airport Equip. Co. v. FMC Corp., 170 F.3d 518, 534 (5th Cir. 1999).
            After the defendants filed their motion for summary judgment,
   Thibodeaux filed five “protective motions” designed to further discovery, to
   protect his right to compel that discovery, and to protect his right to file a
   response to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The
   consideration of Thibodeaux’s protective motions in conjunction with the
   defendants’ motion for summary judgment was within the district court’s
   inherent authority to manage its docket. See Link, 370 U.S. at 630–31. As
   such, the district court did not abuse its discretion in its handling of
   Thibodeaux’s motions. In re Deepwater Horizon, 907 F.3d 232, 234 (5th Cir.
   2018).
            Thibodeaux’s argument that he was denied the opportunity to file an
   opposition to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment is belied by the
   record. As noted above, disposition of the motion for summary judgment
   without further discovery was appropriate, and the specific discovery
   Thibodeaux referenced had no bearing on the defendants’ enforcement of
   the no-smoking policy. See International Shortstop, Inc., 939 F.2d at 1267.
   Consequently, this argument is without merit.
            “This court reviews a summary judgment de novo, using the same
   standard as that employed by the district court.” McFaul v. Valenzuela, 684
   F.3d 564, 571 (5th Cir. 2012). Summary judgment is appropriate “if the

                                         3
Case: 23-30158      Document: 00517046106           Page: 4   Date Filed: 01/26/2024

                                     No. 23-30158

   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).
          A prison official may be held liable under the Eighth Amendment for
   denying a prisoner humane conditions of confinement only if he acts (or fails
   to act) with “deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm to a
   prisoner.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 836 (1994). A prison official acts
   with deliberate indifference “only if he knows that inmates face a substantial
   risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable
   measures to abate it.” Id. at 847.
          The summary judgment evidence, which includes that the defendants
   instituted a no-smoking policy at the prison and that they enforce that policy,
   supports the conclusion that the defendants were not deliberately indifferent
   to the risk of harm to Thibodeaux. See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 35-
   37 (1993); see also Todd v. Hawk, No. 00-11334, 2001 WL 803568, at *3 (5th
   Cir. 2001) (unpublished); Hampton v. Brown, 544 F. App’x 416, 417 (5th Cir.
   2013) (unpublished). The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                          4