Court Opinion

ID: 9839279
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-12 18:00:41.396954+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:42.948177
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-20310         Document: 00516891682             Page: 1      Date Filed: 09/12/2023

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

                                      ____________                                            FILED
                                                                                      September 12, 2023
                                       No. 22-20310                                      Lyle W. Cayce
                                      ____________                                            Clerk

   David Ray Atwood,

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   Kate E. Christopher; Executive Director Bryan
   Collier; Warden Steve McClarin; Captain Cory Webb,

                                               Defendants—Appellees.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Southern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:20-CV-1368
                      ______________________________

   Before Dennis, Engelhardt, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          David Ray Atwood, Texas prisoner #01749941, proceeding pro se and
   in forma pauperis, sued a prison medical provider and other prison officials
   after he sustained a head injury in his cell. Concluding that Atwood had failed
   to state a claim for which relief may be granted, the district court sua sponte
   dismissed       Atwood’s       claims     with     prejudice     under      28       U.S.C.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-20310      Document: 00516891682            Page: 2    Date Filed: 09/12/2023

                                      No. 22-20310

   § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). On appeal, Atwood only challenges the dismissal of his
   deliberate indifference claims against the medical provider. Therefore, he has
   abandoned any challenge to the dismissal of his other claims. See Yohey v.
   Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224–25 (5th Cir. 1993). Construing Atwood’s pro se
   briefing liberally, see Alderson v. Concordia Par. Corr. Facility, 848 F.3d 415,
   419 (5th Cir. 2017), he argues on appeal that the district court failed to accept
   his deliberate indifference allegations as true before dismissing his claims.
          The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires a district court to sua sponte
   dismiss a prisoner’s in forma pauperis suit if, among other things, the court
   finds that the prisoner has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be
   granted or the action is frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)–(ii). Using
   the same standards that govern dismissals under Rule 12(b)(6), we review
   dismissals for failure to state a claim de novo. See Legate v. Livingston, 822 F.3d
   207, 209–10 (5th Cir. 2016). And we review a district court’s dismissal of a
   claim as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) for an abuse of
   discretion. See Carmouche v. Hooper, 77 F.4th 362, 366 (5th Cir. 2023).
          The Supreme Court has held that prison officials violate the Eighth
   Amendment if they act with “deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious
   medical needs, constituting an unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.”
   Easter v. Powell, 467 F.3d 459, 463 (5th Cir. 2006) (quotation omitted). A
   prison official acts with deliberate indifference if he is aware of and ignores a
   serious risk to an inmate’s health. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837
   (1994). “Deliberate indifference is an extremely high standard.” Domino v.
   Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Just., 239 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir. 2001). A plaintiff must
   demonstrate that a defendant denied him treatment, purposefully gave him
   improper treatment, ignored his medical complaints, “or engaged in any
   similar conduct that would clearly evince a wanton disregard for any serious
   medical needs.” Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 346 (5th Cir. 2006)
   (quotation omitted). Unsuccessful medical treatment, negligence, medical

                                           2
Case: 22-20310      Document: 00516891682           Page: 3     Date Filed: 09/12/2023

                                     No. 22-20310

   malpractice, disagreement with medical care, or decisions whether to provide
   additional treatment do not constitute deliberate indifference. Id. Further, a
   treatment delay violates the Eighth Amendment only “if there has been
   deliberate indifference [that] results in substantial harm.” Mendoza v.
   Lynaugh, 989 F.2d 191, 195 (5th Cir. 1993).
          “To assist district courts in discerning whether in forma pauperis
   prisoner complaints may proceed, [this Court] has adopted a procedure from
   the Tenth Circuit that allows the district court to obtain a supplemental
   record to further flesh out the facts behind a prisoner’s complaint.” Davis v.
   Lumpkin, 35 F.4th 958, 963 (5th Cir. 2022) (citation omitted); see also
   Martinez v. Aaron, 570 F.2d 317 (10th Cir. 1978) (creating the procedure).
   That record, known as a Martinez report, is generated by officials who
   investigate the inmate’s allegations and “compil[e] an administrative record
   that acts like an affidavit to aid the district court in screening the complaint.”
   Davis, 35 F.4th at 963. But the district court cannot use the Martinez report
   to resolve factual disputes: “[I]f the Martinez report conflicts with the pro se
   plaintiff’s allegations, the district court [still] must accept the plaintiff’s
   allegations as true, not the records in the report.” Id. at 964.
          Here, even assuming the district court wrongly used the Martinez
   report to conclude that Atwood failed to state a claim for deliberate
   indifference under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), we conclude that any error was
   harmless. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 61. That is because Atwood’s deliberate
   indifference claims are independently frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). A
   district court may dismiss as frivolous the complaint of a prisoner
   proceeding in forma pauperis if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Denton
   v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31–32 (1992). It is clear from the medical records
   compiled with the Martinez report that “medical personnel repeatedly
   diagnosed, treated, and monitored” Atwood’s injuries. See Richie v. Univ. of
   Tex. Med. Branch Hosp. Galveston, 581 F. App’x 405, 407 (5th Cir. 2014). And

                                           3
Case: 22-20310         Document: 00516891682              Page: 4       Date Filed: 09/12/2023

                                          No. 22-20310

   that does not conflict with any allegation in Atwood’s complaint. At most,
   Atwood alleges that he disagrees with the care he received or that the prison
   medical official committed medical malpractice. † See Gobert, 463 F.3d at 346.
   We have long held that deliberate indifference requires more.
           AFFIRMED.

           _____________________
           †
              Atwood’s allegations that he did not receive medication at particular times after
   his injury are not cognizable deliberate indifference claims. See Richie, 581 F. App’x at 407
   (quoting Gobert, 463 F.3d at 346) (“[T]he decision whether to provide additional treatment
   is a classic example of a matter of medical judgment.”).

                                                4