eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2001-10

Gordon v. Police Jury ( 2001 )


Menu:
 
  •                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-30146
Summary Calendar
MARCUS B GORDON, SR
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
POLICE JURY OF JEFFERSON DAVIS
PARISH; RICHARD EDWARDS, Individually
and in his official capacity;
WALLACE SIEMEN, Individually and
in his official capacity; MARK PETRY
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
(No. 99-CV-669)
October 26, 2001
Before DeMOSS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Marcus B. Gordon, Sr., appeals the district court’s partial
dismissal of his complaint and its entry of judgment on the
remainder of his claims.    We find no error and now affirm.   We
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.
view this case as straightforward, making the appointment of
counsel unnecessary.   See Ulmer v. Chancellor,
    691 F.2d 209
    , 213
(5th Cir. 1982).
Gordon alleges a series of constitutional violations (about
29 in all) stemming from his pretrial detention at the Jefferson
Davis Parish jail.   The district court reviewed his complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and dismissed certain claims as
frivolous under subsection (b)(1) of that provision.       The court
entered judgment against Gordon on the remainder of his claims
pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c).      We review claims dismissed
pursuant to § 1915A for an abuse of discretion.       See Berry v.
Brady,
    192 F.3d 504
    , 507 (5th Cir. 1999).       Claims disposed of on
summary judgment are of course reviewed de novo.       See Morris v.
Covan World Wide Moving, Inc.,
    144 F.3d 377
    , 380 (5th Cir. 1998).
Gordon brings this suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
arguing that the conditions of his confinement violated the
Constitution.   Gordon must show that he suffered a physical
injury to sustain such a claim.      Unless a physical injury is
shown, and so long as he is no longer a detainee at the parish
jail, we cannot consider any of the other supposed wrongs
committed against Gordon.   See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e)(“No federal
civil action may be brought by a prisoner . . . for mental or
emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior
showing of physical injury.”); Herman v. Holiday,
    238 F.3d 660
    ,
-2-
665 (5th Cir. 2001)(holding petition for injunctive relief
against continued exposure to unsafe or life-threatening
conditions moot where prisoner no longer incarcerated at
offending institution).
We conclude that the district court’s entry of judgment
against Gordon was proper, there not being a genuine issue of
material fact that the conditions of his confinement were
responsible for any physical injury.    The only physical injury
Gordon complains of is back pain, which he suggests resulted from
restrictions on his ability to exercise.    But more than Gordon’s
own suspicion about the cause of his back pain is required to
avoid judgment.   To impute his ailment to the conditions of his
confinement, there must be at least some competent evidence that
would allow such a deduction.    We see none.   In fact, there is
evidence that Gordon himself was uncertain about the cause of his
pain or that lack of exercise caused him to suffer any specific
injury at all.    We conclude that this evidence, Gordon’s unsigned
April 28, 2000 deposition, is competent, Gordon having failed to
direct us to any inaccuracies.    See Vukadinovich v. Zentz,
    995 F.2d 750
    , 754 (7th Cir. 1993).
The district court correctly dismissed or granted judgment
on Gordon’s other claims.   Each fails because there is no
allegation of physical injury or of Gordon’s continued detention
at the parish jail.   For example, Gordon’s claims that he was
-3-
denied medical treatment, including dental care, and that jail
personnel withheld his medicine, are unaccompanied by any
accusation of resulting physical injury.   Gordon’s other claims,
such as that he was not permitted to receive a newspaper, are now
moot, Gordon having been transferred to another place of
incarceration.   Finally, that he did not have access to a law
library does not merit relief because at the time he was
represented by counsel.   See Degrate v. Godwin,
    84 F.3d 768
    , 769
(5th Cir. 1996).
AFFIRMED.   Motion for appointment of counsel DENIED.
-4-