Elisha Bowie v. Raymond Procunier, Director, Texas Department of Corrections

Fifth Circuit

Elisha Bowie v. Raymond Procunier, Director, Texas Department of Corrections

808 F.2d 1142, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 1749

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 5, 1987

Docket86-2633

StatusPublished

Cited by17 cases

This text of 808 F.2d 1142 (Elisha Bowie v. Raymond Procunier, Director, Texas Department of Corrections) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Elisha Bowie v. Raymond Procunier, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, 808 F.2d 1142, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 1749 (5th Cir. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Bowie, a Texas prisoner, brought this tort suit in the form of a civil rights action against the head of the prison system and his unit’s warden. His complaint is that a piece of bark put one of his eyes out while he was chopping wood because prison authorities did not provide adequate safety equipment to workers such as he, his demand one for several millions of dollars in actual and punitive damages. The trial court dismissed his action for failure to state a claim. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). We affirm.

Bowie’s complaint alleges in essence that he was injured because of negligence on the part of prison officials and that as a result he has been denied due process and equal protection of the laws, as well as subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. It is settled “that the Due Process Clause is simply not implicated by a negligent act of an official causing unintended loss of or injury to life, liberty, or property.” Daniels v. Williams, — U.S. —, —, 106 S.Ct. 662, 663, 88 L.Ed.2d 662, 666 (1986). Nor is the Equal Protection Clause, Arlington Heights v. Metro Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 97 S.Ct. 555, 50 L.Ed.2d 450 (1977) (invidious discriminatory purpose required for claim of racial discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause), or the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976) (“deliberate indifference” to prisoner’s serious illness or injury required for breach of Eighth Amendment).

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Bowie, a Texas prisoner, brought this tort suit in the form of a civil rights action against the head of the prison system and his unit’s warden. His complaint is that a piece of bark put one of his eyes out while he was chopping wood because prison authorities did not provide adequate safety equipment to workers such as he, his demand one for several millions of dollars in actual and punitive damages. The trial court dismissed his action for failure to state a claim. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). We affirm.

Bowie’s complaint alleges in essence that he was injured because of negligence on the part of prison officials and that as a result he has been denied due process and equal protection of the laws, as well as subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. It is settled “that the Due Process Clause is simply not implicated by a negligent act of an official causing unintended loss of or injury to life, liberty, or property.” Daniels v. Williams, — U.S. —, —, 106 S.Ct. 662, 663, 88 L.Ed.2d 662, 666 (1986). Nor is the Equal Protection Clause, Arlington Heights v. Metro Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 97 S.Ct. 555, 50 L.Ed.2d 450 (1977) (invidious discriminatory purpose required for claim of racial discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause), or the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976) (“deliberate indifference” to prisoner’s serious illness or injury required for breach of Eighth Amendment).

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

808 F.2d 1142, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 1749, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elisha-bowie-v-raymond-procunier-director-texas-department-of-ca5-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack