Court Opinion

ID: 9929677
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-03 01:00:40.930846+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:43:08.576812
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10288         Document: 00517054877             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/02/2024

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 23-10288
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                               February 2, 2024
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   Ennis Johnson,                                                                      Clerk

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   Mohammad Mehdi Ansari; Marcia J. Odal,

                                               Defendants—Appellees.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                                USDC No. 7:20-CV-22
                      ______________________________

   Before Jolly, Engelhardt, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Ennis Johnson, Texas prisoner # 691762, appeals the summary
   judgment granted to the physician defendants on his claim that they were
   deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth
   Amendment.          The claim rested on allegations regarding his course of
   treatment, including that he was denied a referral to a cardiologist and later

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10288     Document: 00517054877           Page: 2   Date Filed: 02/02/2024

                                    No. 23-10288

   denied a cardiac catheterization because he had threatened to sue one of the
   doctors. We review the grant of a summary judgment de novo. See Dillon v.
   Rogers, 596 F.3d 260, 266 (5th Cir. 2010).
          Deliberate indifference by medical providers is an “extremely high
   standard” that requires evidence showing that the defendants “refused to
   treat [the plaintiff], ignored his complaints, intentionally treated him
   incorrectly, 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) (internal quotation marks and citations
   omitted). According to Johnson, evidence showed that his cardiologist
   believed the cardiac catheterization was necessary until the day of the
   scheduled procedure, when it was cancelled, and a scan of his legs was
   performed instead without his informed consent. He asserts that the district
   court erred by summarizing his claims generally instead of addressing his
   specific factual allegations, that it mischaracterized his claims, that it was
   biased in favor of the defendants, and that it failed to address the evidence
   submitted with his motion for reconsideration. In addition, he alleges that
   employees of the court and the prison library conspired to deny him access
   to the record on appeal.
          Johnson did not identify any evidence supporting his allegation that
   he was denied appropriate care because he had threatened to sue one of his
   doctors, and his unsubstantiated allegation that the defendants intentionally
   treated him incorrectly was insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material
   fact as necessary to defeat the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
   See Carnaby v. City of Houston, 636 F.3d 183, 187 (5th Cir. 2011); Gobert, 463
   F.3d at 346 & n.23. Although Johnson disagreed with his course of treatment,
   he did not allege or substantiate any other egregious intentional conduct by
   the defendants that would constitute deliberate indifference. See Gobert, 463

                                         2
Case: 23-10288       Document: 00517054877       Page: 3   Date Filed: 02/02/2024

                                  No. 23-10288

   F.3d at 346, 351. His remaining arguments are irrelevant, conclusory, or
   frivolous.
          Accordingly, Johnson’s motions for oral argument, sanctions, and a
   probable cause hearing are DENIED. The judgment of the district court is
   in all respects
                                                              AFFIRMED.

                                       3