The opinion
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 3, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-41224
Summary Calendar
GEORGE CRAPE,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
BRAZORIA COUNTY, ET AL.,
Defendants,
JOE KING, Brazoria County Sheriff; D. FLETCHER,
Brazoria County Sergeant
Defendants-Appellants.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. G-01-CV-810
--------------------
Before BARKSDALE, DEMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
George Crape filed a civil rights suit under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 after his right testicle was removed following an injury
he sustained while he was a pretrial detainee at the Brazoria
County Detention Center. Sheriff Joe King and Sergeant Dale
Fletcher appeal the district court’s denial of their motion for
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 02-41224
-2-
summary judgment in which they argued that they were entitled to
qualified immunity. Crape alleged that King and Fletcher
violated his Eighth Amendment protection from cruel and unusual
punishment when they failed to provide him immediate care by a
urologist.
Whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity
depends on two inquiries. Harris v. Victoria Indep. Sch. Dist.,
168 F.3d 216, 223 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 533
(1999). First, a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity
when a plaintiff has failed to allege the violation of a clearly
established constitutional right. Id. Second, a defense of
qualified immunity will succeed if the defendant's conduct was
objectively reasonable at the time in light of clearly
established law. Id.
King and Fletcher argue that the law was not clearly
established that either of them had a constitutional duty to
ensure that Crape be seen immediately by a medical specialist
absent subjective knowledge of Crape’s need of immediate
treatment. The evidence Crape submitted in opposition to the
defendants’ motion for summary judgment evidence showed that King
and Fletcher, each, were subjectively aware that more than one
month after an injury in which Crape’s right testicle was pushed
into his groin, Crape remained in excruciating pain, and had
still not seen a urologist. Thus, Crape raised an genuine issues
as to a fact which, if true, would clearly evince the medical
No. 02-41224
-3-
need in question and indicate that the denial of treatment was
much more likely than not to result in serious medical
consequences. Johnson v. Treen, 759 F.2d 1236, 1238 (5th Cir.
1985). The district court’s denial of summary judgment based on
the Fletcher’s and King’s qualified immunity is AFFIRMED.