retaliation claim fails without evidence showing retaliatory intent
How later courts described this case
- retaliation claim fails without evidence showing retaliatory intent
- causation places a “significant burden” on the inmate, and claims of retaliation are regarded “with skepticism”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Case: 24-40133 Document: 52-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/27/2024
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________ United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 24-40133 November 27, 2024
Summary Calendar
____________ Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
James Schorsch,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Isaac Kwarteng; Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
Defendants—Appellees.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:19-CV-323
______________________________
Before Barksdale, Stewart, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, James Schorsch, Texas
prisoner # 1551453, challenges the district-court bench-trial verdict in favor
of defendants-appellees. (Schorsch had appointed counsel at trial.)
Based on extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law, the court
ruled that Schorsch did not meet his burden to prove: the Texas Department
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 24-40133 Document: 52-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/27/2024
No. 24-40133
of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) failed to accommodate his physical disability, in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); and Dr. Isaac
Kwarteng, the medical director of the TDCJ’s McConnell Unit, retaliated
against him for filing the underlying action by removing a special housing
restriction: that Schorsch be housed with inmates having “like medical
conditions”.
“The standard of review for a bench trial is well established: findings
of fact are reviewed for clear error and legal issues are reviewed de novo.”
Lewis v. Ascension Par. Sch. Bd., 806 F.3d 344, 353 (5th Cir. 2015) (citation
omitted). “A [factual] finding is clearly erroneous if it is without substantial
evidence to support it, the court misinterpreted the effect of the evidence, or
this court is convinced that the findings are against the preponderance of
credible testimony.” Id. (citation omitted). Under this standard, our court
will uphold the district court’s findings “so long as [they are] plausible in
light of the record as a whole”. Chemtech Royalty Assocs., L.P. v. United
States, 766 F.3d 453, 460 (5th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). For the following
reasons, including essentially for the reasons stated in the district court’s
findings and conclusions, the court did not err in ruling for defendants-
appellees.
To succeed on a failure-to-accommodate claim, Schorsch must prove
by a preponderance of the evidence that “(1) he is a qualified individual with
a disability; (2) the disability and its consequential limitations were known by
the covered entity; and (3) the entity failed to make reasonable
accommodations”. Smith v. Harris Cnty., 956 F.3d 311, 317 (5th Cir. 2020)
(citation omitted). Because Schorsch has limited mobility in his arms and
hands as the result of damage to his ulnar nerves, he contends that the special
housing restriction is a necessary, reasonable accommodation because he
would be unable to defend himself from a violent cellmate who lacked a
similar physical disability.
2
Case: 24-40133 Document: 52-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/27/2024
No. 24-40133
The district court concluded that Schorsch proved the first two
elements of the failure-to-accommodate claim—that he was a qualified
individual with a disability and TDCJ knew of his disability and its
consequential limitations. Nonetheless, Schorsch’s claim failed because he
did not satisfy the third element. In other words, Schorsch did not show that
the special housing restriction providing that he be housed with inmates with
“like medical conditions” was a reasonable accommodation.
TDCJ is not required to provide an accommodation merely because
Schorsch requested it; TDCJ must only provide him with reasonable
accommodations that give “meaningful access to the benefit that the grantee
offers”. Cadena v. El Paso Cnty., 946 F.3d 717, 725 (5th Cir. 2020) (citation
omitted). Prison officials are afforded deference in determining what
amounts to a reasonable accommodation. Id. Further, the record shows
TDCJ provided several reasonable accommodations to ensure Schorsch had
meaningful access to safe and appropriate housing in the light of his physical
limitations, including, inter alia, a lower-bunk assignment and a permanent
lifting restriction.
With respect to the retaliation claim against Dr. Kwarteng, the court
ruled that Schorsch failed to meet his burden to prove causation and the
requisite retaliatory intent. E.g., DeMarco v. Davis, 914 F.3d 383, 388 (5th
Cir. 2019) (causation places a “significant burden” on the inmate, and claims
of retaliation are regarded “with skepticism”); McDonald v. Steward, 132
F.3d 225, 231 (5th Cir. 1998) (retaliation claim fails without evidence showing
retaliatory intent). Because the underlying findings of fact were plausible in
the light of the record as a whole, Schorsch has not shown the requisite error.
See Chemtech Royalty Assocs., 766 F.3d at 460.
AFFIRMED.
3