Johnson v. Ansari

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: February 2, 2024
• Docket: 23-10288
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 23-10288 Document: 00517054877 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/02/2024

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 23-10288 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ February 2, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce Ennis Johnson, Clerk

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Mohammad Mehdi Ansari; Marcia J. Odal,

Defendants—Appellees. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 7:20-CV-22 ______________________________

Before Jolly, Engelhardt, and Douglas, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Ennis Johnson, Texas prisoner # 691762, appeals the summary judgment granted to the physician defendants on his claim that they were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The claim rested on allegations regarding his course of treatment, including that he was denied a referral to a cardiologist and later

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 23-10288 Document: 00517054877 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/02/2024

No. 23-10288

denied a cardiac catheterization because he had threatened to sue one of the doctors. We review the grant of a summary judgment de novo. See Dillon v. Rogers, 596 F.3d 260, 266 (5th Cir. 2010). Deliberate indifference by medical providers is an “extremely high standard” that requires evidence showing that the defendants “refused to treat [the plaintiff], 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.” Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 346 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). According to Johnson, evidence showed that his cardiologist believed the cardiac catheterization was necessary until the day of the scheduled procedure, when it was cancelled, and a scan of his legs was performed instead without his informed consent. He asserts that the district court erred by summarizing his claims generally instead of addressing his specific factual allegations, that it mischaracterized his claims, that it was biased in favor of the defendants, and that it failed to address the evidence submitted with his motion for reconsideration. In addition, he alleges that employees of the court and the prison library conspired to deny him access to the record on appeal. Johnson did not identify any evidence supporting his allegation that he was denied appropriate care because he had threatened to sue one of his doctors, and his unsubstantiated allegation that the defendants intentionally treated him incorrectly was insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact as necessary to defeat the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. See Carnaby v. City of Houston, 636 F.3d 183, 187 (5th Cir. 2011); Gobert, 463 F.3d at 346 & n.23. Although Johnson disagreed with his course of treatment, he did not allege or substantiate any other egregious intentional conduct by the defendants that would constitute deliberate indifference. See Gobert, 463

2 Case: 23-10288 Document: 00517054877 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/02/2024

F.3d at 346, 351. His remaining arguments are irrelevant, conclusory, or frivolous. Accordingly, Johnson’s motions for oral argument, sanctions, and a probable cause hearing are DENIED. The judgment of the district court is in all respects AFFIRMED.