Zambrano v. Davis

• Court: District Court, N.D. Texas
• Decided: February 18, 2022
• Docket: 2:18-cv-00245
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTE RN SIRT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FIL ED OF □□□ □□ AMARILLO DIVISION [16a] LORVIN ZAMBRANO, § wa SPISTRICT Coy, TDCJ-CID No. 01819703, § to RT Plaintiff, V. 2:18-CV-245-Z-BR LORIE DAVIS et al., Defendants. ; MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER -DISMISSING CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT Before the Court is Plaintiffs civil rights complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the above-referenced Defendants (ECF No. 3) (“Complaint”), filed December 31, 2018. 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. For the reasons discussed herein, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's Complaint WITH PREJUDICE. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff alleges Defendants acted with deliberate indifference in failing to replace his damaged knee while he has been incarcerated. ECF No. 3 at 4. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages for Defendants’ alleged failure to provide him reconstructive surgery on his knee and for injunctive relief to have the surgery performed. Jd. The attached grievances and evidence submitted with Plaintiff's Complaint indicate his is regularly seen by medical personnel at TDCJ for pain in his knee and is receiving treatment. ECF Nos. 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, 3-4, & 3-5. Plaintiff,

however, has not received surgery. Jd. The grievances also indicate that Plaintiff has had chronic knee pain since at least as early as 2015. Jd. 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 (Sth 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) (quoting Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 173 (1976)). Such indifference may be “manifested by prison doctors in their 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,

lA 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 (5th 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),

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 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 or medical malpractice do not constitute deliberate indifference; nor does a prisoner’s disagreement with his medical treatment, absent exceptional circumstances. Hall v. Thomas, 190 F.3d 693 (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 showing of deliberate indifference 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). The Fifth Circuit defines a “serious medical need” as “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). If prison medical personnel exercise professional medical judgment,

his behavior will not violate a prisoner's constitutional rights. Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 322-23 (1982). The need for knee surgery or the decision to provide alternative treatment is within the medical opinion of the treating physician. See Caviness v. Ladner, No. 3:09-CV-361-LRA, 2012 WL 1067957, at *8 (S.D. Miss. Mar. 29, 2012) (determining whether knee replacement should be performed is within the medical judgment of prisoner’s treating physician). Plaintiff's attachments to his Complaint indicate that he has regularly been treated for his chronic knee condition. ECF Nos. 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, 3-4, & 3-5. Further, his disagreement with the TDCJ-prescribed treatment plan does not constitute deliberate indifference. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs Complaint WITH PREJUDICE. 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 WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous. SO ORDERED. February 1. 2022 ow HEW J. KACSMARYK TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4 .