Court Opinion

ID: 9396151
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-19 18:01:20.264469+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:13.998251
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-20323        Document: 00516756537             Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/19/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                          United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                          Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                                        FILED
                                                                                     May 19, 2023
                                      No. 22-20323
                                    Summary Calendar                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                    ____________                                          Clerk

   Ruben Hernandez,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   UTMB Galveston Hospital; UTMB Galveston Hospital
   Staff; Dr. Michael Britt, Medical Doctor; Matthew
   McCarley, Medical Doctor; Unknown Nurses; Jester III
   Staff; Doctor Hulipas Edgar; Doctor Abram S.; M.
   Beck, Nurse Practitioner; L. Onwukwe, Nurse Practitioner; Justin
   Thomas, P.M.,

                                              Defendants—Appellees.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Southern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 4:20-CV-4377
                     ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-20323      Document: 00516756537          Page: 2    Date Filed: 05/19/2023

                                    No. 22-20323

          Ruben Hernandez, Texas prisoner # 2175847, appeals the dismissal of
   his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
   granted. Hernandez alleged that the defendants were deliberately indifferent
   to his medical care, failed to provide him an adequate language interpreter
   during medical appointments, and violated his rights under the Americans
   with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213, and Rehabilitation
   Act (RA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 701-794.
          Because the district court dismissed Hernandez’s complaint for
   failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), we review that
   ruling under the same de novo standard that applies to a dismissal under
   Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Black v. Warren, 134 F.3d 732,
   733-34 (5th Cir. 1998). “We accept all well-pleaded facts as true and view
   those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Whitley v. Hanna, 726
   F.3d 631, 637 (5th Cir. 2013). Nonetheless, a complaint will not proceed
   unless it “contain[s] sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a
   claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
   678 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
          Hernandez argues that the district court erred in dismissing his claims
   against Drs. Michael Britt and Matthew McCarly because he raised a
   plausible claim that they were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs
   before hip surgeries. He asserts that they should have prescribed him
   prophylactic antibiotics prior to the procedures because they were aware of
   his risk of infection. Hernandez also claims that this omission amounted to
   medical malpractice.
          Additionally, Hernandez challenges the dismissal of his deliberate
   indifference claims against Drs. Abram and Hulipas. He contends that
   Dr. Abram violated his rights by not offering or prescribing Hernandez
   various medical supplies, such as a wheelchair or rollator. Hernandez claims

                                              2
Case: 22-20323      Document: 00516756537          Page: 3   Date Filed: 05/19/2023

                                    No. 22-20323

   Dr. Hulipas was deliberately indifferent to Hernandez’s medical needs by not
   prescribing requested pain medication and medical equipment.
          The allegations against these doctors amount to negligence or a
   disagreement with treatment, which are not actionable under the Eighth
   Amendment. See Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 346 (5th Cir. 2006);
   Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991). Additionally,
   Hernandez’s claim of medical malpractice is not actionable under the Eighth
   Amendment. See Varnado, 920 F.2d at 321.
          Hernandez argues that the district court erred when it dismissed his
   claims under the ADA. He contends that the district court gave inadequate
   weight to the extent of defendants’ failures to address his disability. Even
   assuming that Hernandez is correct that his hip injury and subsequent
   infection qualifies him for relief under the ADA, he has not stated a plausible
   ADA claim because a prerequisite to compensatory damages under the
   statute is a claim of intentional discrimination based upon a disability.
   Hernandez has only offered a bare assertion in that regard. See Iqbal, 556 U.S.
   at 678; Delano-Pyle v. Victoria Cnty., 302 F.3d 567, 575 (5th Cir. 2002).
   Because Hernandez does not challenge the dismissal of his RA claim, he has
   abandoned that argument. See Brinkmann v. Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th
   Cir. 1987).
          In addition, Hernandez argues that the district court erred in
   dismissing his claim that the defendants violated his constitutional rights and
   Texas prison policy by denying him an effective interpreter. However, he
   fails to state an Eighth Amendment claim because he has not alleged
   deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs constituting an
   unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97,
   104-06 (1976).    Moreover, Hernandez does not specify what medical
   decisions he would have made differently with another interpreter. These

                                             3
Case: 22-20323      Document: 00516756537           Page: 4     Date Filed: 05/19/2023

                                     No. 22-20323

   speculative and bare assertions are insufficient to state a facially plausible
   claim for relief. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
   544, 555 (2007). Additionally, Hernandez’s assertion that the defendants
   failed to provide an adequate interpreter in violation of prison policy does not
   state a claim of a constitutional violation. See Myers v. Klevenhagen, 97 F.3d
   91, 94 (5th Cir. 1996).
          Finally, Hernandez contends that the district court erroneously
   denied his requests for appointment of counsel. However, a review of the
   district court docket sheet and record does not reflect that Hernandez filed
   any such requests or motions. In any event, he has not demonstrated that
   exceptional circumstances warranted the appointment of counsel. See Cupit
   v. Jones, 835 F.2d 82, 86 (5th Cir. 1987); Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209,
   212-13 (5th Cir. 1982).
          AFFIRMED.

                                               4