Case: 22-20357 Document: 00516763698 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/25/2023
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Fifth Circuit
`____________
`
`No. 22-20357
`Summary Calendar
`____________
`
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`Fifth Circuit
`
`FILED
`May 25, 2023
`
`Lyle W. Cayce
`Clerk
`
`Jesus Eden Garcia,
`
`
`
`
`versus
`
`Plaintiff—Appellant,
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Fifth Circuit
`____________
`
`No. 22-20357
`Summary Calendar
`____________
`
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`Fifth Circuit
`
`FILED
`May 25, 2023
`
`Lyle W. Cayce
`Clerk
`
`Jesus Eden Garcia,
`
`
`
`
`versus
`
`Plaintiff—Appellant,
`
`
`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
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
