Tommy Jackson v. Christopher Epps , 519 F. App'x 261 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 12-60393       Document: 00512225013         Page: 1     Date Filed: 04/30/2013
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    April 30, 2013
    No. 12-60393
    Summary Calendar                        Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    TOMMY JACKSON,
    Plaintiff-Appellant
    v.
    CHRISTOPHER EPPS, GEO GROUP, INCORPORATED; DALE CASKEY;
    BART GRIMES; DOCTOR UNKNOWN ABANGDON; MS. UNKNOWN
    ATWOOD; MS. UNKNOWN CARTER,
    Defendants-Appellees
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Mississippi
    USDC No. 4:10-CV-197
    Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and KING and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Tommy Jackson, Mississippi inmate # 32944, appeals the grant of
    summary judgment for the defendants in his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     suit. Jackson
    sued the defendants in their official and individual capacities. He alleged that
    his suit arose out of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and that his
    constitutional rights were violated when he was transferred to administrative
    *
    Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
    R. 47.5.4.
    Case: 12-60393    Document: 00512225013     Page: 2   Date Filed: 04/30/2013
    No. 12-60393
    segregation at the East Mississippi Correctional Facility (EMCF) and exposed
    to tuberculosis in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights.
    Summary judgment is proper “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). “[T]he party moving for summary
    judgment must demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, but
    need not negate the elements of the nonmovant’s case.” Little v. Liquid Air
    Corp., 
    37 F.3d 1069
    , 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (internal quotation marks
    and citation omitted). If the movant meets this burden, the nonmovant must go
    beyond the pleadings and designate specific facts showing that there is a
    genuine issue for trial.   
    Id.
       This court “resolve[s] doubts in favor of the
    nonmoving party and make[s] all reasonable inferences in favor of that party.”
    Dean v. City of Shreveport, 
    438 F.3d 448
    , 454 (5th Cir. 2006).
    In his brief, Jackson fails to provide facts and argument challenging the
    magistrate judge’s decision to dismiss Jackson’s claims regarding his removal
    from the general prison population under the ADA and the Due Process Clause
    for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, the magistrate judge’s
    determination that Epps was entitled to summary judgment on Jackson’s claims
    against him in his official capacity, and the magistrate judge’s determination
    that GEO was entitled to summary judgment because Jackson failed to allege
    it implemented an unconstitutional policy. Jackson has abandoned these claims
    by failing to brief them. See Yohey v. Collins, 
    985 F.2d 222
    , 224-25 (5th Cir.
    1993).
    Jackson argues that he had the right to be protected from disease and that
    the defendants failed to attend to his medical needs when they did not remove
    him from the cell where he was exposed to tuberculosis. Jackson testified that
    he and other inmates were placed in crowded living conditions and that inmate
    Davis exhibited symptoms of coughing and vomiting before the defendants
    removed him from “little seg.” He also testified, however, that after Davis was
    2
    Case: 12-60393    Document: 00512225013     Page: 3     Date Filed: 04/30/2013
    No. 12-60393
    diagnosed with tuberculosis, prison officials removed Davis from the unit where
    Jackson and the other prisoners were housed and they did not see him again.
    Jackson further testified that he and his fellow inmates were quarantined,
    tested, and medicated. In light of this testimony, Jackson fails to demonstrate
    that the individual GEO defendants acted with deliberate indifference. Wilson
    v. Seiter, 
    501 U.S. 294
    , 297 (1991); see Farmer v. Brennan, 
    511 U.S. 825
    , 847
    (1994); Gibbs v. Grimmette, 
    254 F.3d 545
    , 549-50 (5th Cir. 2001).
    According to Jackson, “the MDOC defendants” had him transferred to the
    EMCF in retaliation for filing an ADA suit. Jackson cannot overcome summary
    judgment on his retaliation claim because he does not identify which of “the
    MDOC defendants” had the intent to retaliate against him or who among them
    caused the transfer. See Jones v. Greninger, 
    188 F.3d 322
    , 325 (5th Cir. 1999).
    Conclusory allegations of retaliation are not sufficient to withstand a proper
    motion for dismissal of the claim. Jones, 
    188 F.3d at 325
    . Although Jackson
    identifies the wardens as the responsible party, the magistrate judge dismissed
    the claims against Wardens Grimes and Caskey as unexhausted, and Jackson
    does not brief this issue. See Yohey, 
    985 F.2d at 224-25
    .
    In addition to assigning error to the magistrate judge’s summary judgment
    dismissal of his constitutional claims, Jackson complains that he was not
    allowed to conduct discovery. Our review of discovery decisions is for an abuse
    of discretion, and we will affirm such decisions unless they are arbitrary or
    clearly unreasonable. Moore v. Willis Indep. Sch. Dist., 
    233 F.3d 871
    , 876 (5th
    Cir. 2000). Jackson has not made the required showing. Moore, 
    233 F.3d at 876
    .
    Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
    3