Espinoza v. Porter

• Court: District Court, N.D. Texas
• Decided: February 28, 2022
• Docket: 2:19-cv-00039
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

U.S. DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FEB28 2002 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS cLERR UE Gaver □ AMARILLO DIVISION “pg ISTRICT COURT Ieputy RUDY ESPINOZA, § TDCJ-CID No. 02157808, § § Plaintiff, § § V. § 2:19-CV-039-Z-BR § TEXAS TECH § ADMINISTRATION et ai., § § Defendants. § MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT Before the Court is Plaintiff's civil rights complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.§ 1983 against the above-referenced Defendants (ECF No. 3) (“Complaint”), filed March 1, 2019. Plaintiff filed suit pro se while incarcerated in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (“TDCJ”), Correctional Institutions Division. Plaintiff was granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis. During screening, the Court ordered the Attorney General to submit a Martinez Report and medical records concerning Plaintiffs allegations. ECF Nos. 25, 26. For the reasons discussed herein, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs Complaint. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On October 13, 2017, Plaintiff was prescribed a warm foot soak to treat a sore on the bottom of his foot. ECF No. 3 at 4. Plaintiff is a type-2 diabetic and has diabetic neuropathy. Jd. He was unable to sense the temperature of the water when he immersed his foot into the soaking liquid. Jd. Plaintiff's foot was burned and he contracted an extremely painful foot infection from

the burns and the subsequent treatment. /d. Plaintiff claims that Defendant Porter told him he could have checked the temperature of the water himself. Jd. Defendants dispute that claim. /d. Plaintiff also claims that the infection resulted in the surgical removal of an infected bone in the right foot, causing “physical injury, mental anguish, and emotional distress.” Jd. at 9. LEGAL STANDARD When a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility brings an action with respect to prison conditions under any federal law, the Court may evaluate the complaint and dismiss it without service of process, Ali v. Higgs, 892 F.2d 438, 440 (Sth Cir. 1990), if it is frivolous,! malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A, 1915(e)(2). The same standards will support dismissal of a suit brought under any federal law by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility, where such suit concerns prison conditions. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1). A Spears hearing need not be conducted for every pro se complaint. Wilson v. Barrientos, 926 F.2d 480, 483 n.4 (5th Cir. 1991).? ANALYSIS “(D]eliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes the ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain’... proscribed by the Eighth Amendment.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). Such indifference may be “manifested by prison doctors in their

' A claim is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact. Booker v. Koonce, 2 F.3d 114, 115 (Sth Cir. 1993). 2 Green vs. McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1116, 1120 (Sth Cir. 1986) (“Of course, our discussion of Spears should not be interpreted to mean that all or even most prisoner claims require or deserve a Spears hearing. A district court should be able to dismiss as frivolous a significant number of prisoner suits on the complaint alone or the complaint together with the Watson questionnaire.”). Dismissals may also be based on adequately identified or authenticated records. Banuelos v. McFarland, 41 F.3d 232, 234 (Sth Cir. 1995).

response to the prisoner’s needs or by prison guards in intentionally denying or delaying access to medical care or intentionally interfering with the treatment once prescribed.” Jd. Medical records showing sick calls, examinations, diagnoses, and medications may rebut an inmate’s allegations of deliberate indifference. Banuelos v. McFarland, 41 F.3d 232, 235 (Sth Cir. 1995). A delay in medical care to a prisoner can constitute an Eighth Amendment violation only if there has been deliberate indifference, which results in substantial harm. Mendoza v. Lynaugh, 989 F.2d 191, 195 (Sth Cir. 1993), Deliberate indifference “is an extremely high standard to meet.” Hernandez v. Tex. Dep't of Protective & Regul. Servs., 380 F.3d 872, 882 (Sth Cir. 2004) (“We begin by emphasizing that our court has interpreted the test of deliberate indifference as a significantly high burden for plaintiffs to overcome.”). A prison official acts with deliberate indifference “only if (A) he knows that inmates face a substantial risk of serious bodily harm and (B) he disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it.” Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 346 (Sth Cir. 2006); see also Reeves v. Collins, 27 F.3d 174, 176-77 (Sth Cir. 1994). Unsuccessful medical treatment, acts of negligence, and medical malpractice do not constitute deliberate indifference. Nor does a prisoner’s disagreement with his medical treatment, absent exceptional circumstances. Hail v. Thomas, 190 F.3d 693, 697-98 (Sth Cir. 1999); Stewart v. Murphy, 174 F.3d 530, 537 (Sth Cir. 1999); Banuelos v. McFarland, 41 F.3d 232, 235 (Sth Cir. 1995); Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (Sth Cir. 1991). A deliberate indifference showing requires the prisoner to submit evidence that prison officials “refused to treat him, 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.” Johnson v. Treen, 759 F.2d 1236, 1238 (Sth Cir. 1985). A “serious medical need” is “one for which treatment has been recommended or for which the need is so apparent that even a layman would recognize that care is required.” Gobert, 463 F.3d at 345 n.12 (emphasis added). Here, the medical reports indicate Defendants provided continued treatment to Plaintiff for his foot condition, including treatment for his infection and surgery. Even though Defendant Porter may have acted with negligence or gross negligence in failing to test the water temperature before Plaintiff was provided treatment, Plaintiffs Complaint does not state a claim for deliberate indifference to his medical needs. The Court therefore DISMISSES Plaintiff's Complaint. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A, 1915(e)(2) and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), the Court ORDERS Plaintiff's Complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. SO ORDERED. February gh. 2022 a HEW J. fee UNJTED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE