“Although we liberally construe the briefs of pro se appellants, we also require that arguments must be briefed to be preserved.” (citation omitted)
How later courts described this case
- “Although we liberally construe the briefs of pro se appellants, we also require that arguments must be briefed to be preserved.” (citation omitted)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Case: 22-20357 Document: 00516763698 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/25/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________ United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-20357 FILED
Summary Calendar May 25, 2023
____________ Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Jesus Eden Garcia,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Captain T. Lee, Laundry Captain; Sergeant Carter, Laundry
Sergeant; Sergeant Beckham, Assistant Safety Director; K.
Thornton, Maintenance Supervisor; Doctor Betty Williams,
UTMB-CMHC-Ombudsman Medical Infirmary; Alma Carter,
Defendants—Appellees.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:21-CV-116
______________________________
Before Barksdale, Elrod, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Jesus Eden Garcia, Texas prisoner # 02128847 and proceeding pro se,
filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Texas Department of
Criminal Justice Captain Thomas Lee, Sergeant Alma Carter, Sergeant Kori
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-20357 Document: 00516763698 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/25/2023
No. 22-20357
Beckham, and Maintenance Supervisor Kevin Thornton, claiming they were
deliberately indifferent to the hazard posed by a malfunctioning dryer door
(defective bolt) which fell on Garcia’s head, neck, and back while he was
working in the prison’s laundry room. Garcia also included Dr. Betty
Williams, a prison-infirmary doctor, claiming she was deliberately indifferent
to his medical needs resulting from the incident.
Garcia challenges the summary judgment awarded defendants, based
on qualified immunity. (He has abandoned any challenge to the district
court’s ruling that the Eleventh Amendment barred his official-capacity
claims against defendants by failing to brief them. See Yohey v. Collins, 985
F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1994) (“Although we liberally construe the briefs of
pro se appellants, we also require that arguments must be briefed to be
preserved.” (citation omitted)).)
A summary judgment is reviewed de novo. E.g., Austin v. Kroger Tex.,
L.P., 864 F.3d 326, 328 (5th Cir. 2017). Such judgment is to be granted “if
the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and
the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law”. Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(a).
When, as here, however, defendants assert qualified immunity in a
summary-judgment motion, “the burden then shifts to the plaintiff, who
must rebut the defense”. Brown v. Callahan, 623 F.3d 249, 253 (5th Cir.
2010). To overcome qualified immunity, Garcia must show: defendants
“violated [, inter alia,] his constitutional rights”; and the rights were “clearly
established at the time of the alleged misconduct”. Cleveland v. Bell, 938 F.3d
672, 675–76 (5th Cir. 2019).
The Eighth Amendment requires prison officials “take reasonable
measures to guarantee the safety of the inmates”. Farmer v. Brennan, 511
U.S. 825, 832 (1994) (citation omitted). Not every injury suffered by a
2
Case: 22-20357 Document: 00516763698 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/25/2023
No. 22-20357
prisoner, however, “translates into” a constitutional violation. Id. at 834.
Rather, to establish liability, plaintiff must show: a prison condition posed a
“substantial risk of serious harm” to the inmate; and the prison official
displayed a “deliberate indifference” to that risk. Id. The official responds
with deliberate indifference when he: “(1) was aware of facts from which the
inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists; (2)
subjectively drew the inference that the risk existed; and (3) disregarded the
risk”. Cleveland, 938 F.3d at 676 (citation omitted).
Garcia fails to show defendants Lee, Carter, Beckham, and Thornton
subjectively drew an inference that the dryer door posed a “substantial risk
of serious harm” to Garcia. Id. He therefore fails to show the requisite
deliberate indifference. Accordingly, summary judgment was proper for
these defendants. See id. at 675–77.
Regarding Garcia’s claim against Dr. Williams, “[i]n the context of
medical care, a prison official violates the Eighth Amendment when [she]
acts with deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical needs”.
Domino v. Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Just., 239 F.3d 752, 754 (5th Cir. 2001). After
Garcia was injured by the dryer door, he was taken to the infirmary and a
hospital, and was diagnosed with a minor head injury and cervical strain. He
was subsequently examined by Dr. Williams, who prescribed an anti-
inflammatory drug. He was additionally examined by others in the infirmary,
who prescribed muscle relaxers and showed him how to perform neck and
back stretches to aid in his rehabilitation. The record shows Garcia was
“afforded extensive medical care”; therefore, he fails to show the requisite
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Brauner v. Coody, 793
F.3d 493, 500 (5th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). Accordingly, summary
3
Case: 22-20357 Document: 00516763698 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/25/2023
No. 22-20357
judgment was also proper for Dr. Williams. See Cleveland, 938 F.3d at 675–
76.
AFFIRMED.
4