Atkinson v. Johnson , 74 F. App'x 365 ( 2003 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 26, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-20123
Summary Calendar
DONALD JAMES ATKINSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
GARY L. JOHNSON,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-00-CV-4401
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Donald James Atkinson, Texas state prisoner # 692017,
appeals the summary-judgment dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983civil rights action seeking damages and declaratory and injunctive
relief. We AFFIRM.
Atkinson contends that he is entitled to relief as a result
of being deprived of adequate sleep by implementation of Texas
Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division’s (TDCJ)
security policy SM-06.03, issued by appellee Johnson. This
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 03-20123
-2-
policy requires opening and closing of cell doors so that,
Atkinson asserts, it is impossible for him to get enough
uninterrupted sleep nightly in order to maintain his health.
The district court held that Atkinson is not entitled to
collect monetary damages from Johnson because Atkinson does not
assert that he has sustained any physical injury from deprivation
of sleep resulting from the implementation of SM-06.03. We
perceive no error in this ruling. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e);
Herman v. Holiday, 238 F.3d 660, 665-66 (5th Cir. 2001).
Concerning Atkinson’s claims for declaratory and injunctive
relief, “the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and
unusual punishment does require that prisoners be afforded
‘humane conditions of confinement.’” Herman, 238 F.3d at 664.
This court has stated that “sleep undoubtedly counts as one of
life’s basic needs. Conditions designed to prevent [prisoners’]
sleep, then, might violate the Eighth Amendment.” Harper
v. Showers, 174 F.3d 716, 720 (5th Cir. 1999).
“In order to establish an Eighth Amendment violation
regarding conditions of confinement, an inmate must establish:
first, that the deprivation alleged was sufficiently serious. . .;
and second, that the prison official possessed a sufficiently
culpable state of mind.” Herman, 238 F.3d at 664. The inmate
must prove “that the official acted with deliberate indifference
to inmate health or safety.” Id. To establish deliberate
indifference, the inmate must show “that the defendant officials
No. 03-20123
-3-
‘(1) were aware of facts from which an inference of excessive
risk to the prisoner’s health or safety could be drawn and
(2) that they actually drew an inference that such potential for
harm existed.’” Id. (quoting Bradley v. Puckett, 157 F.3d 1022,
1025 (5th Cir. 1998)).
An inmate may obtain injunctive relief if he shows that it
is necessary in order “to prevent a substantial risk of serious
injury from ripening into actual harm.” Farmer v. Brennan,
500 U.S. 825, 845 (1994). To avoid summary judgment, however,
“he must come forward with evidence . . . that the defendant-
officials were at the time suit was filed, and are at the time
of summary judgment, knowingly and unreasonably disregarding an
objectively intolerable risk of harm, and that they will continue
to do so.” Id. at 845-46. “[F]inally to establish eligibility
for an injunction, the inmate must demonstrate the continuance of
that disregard during the remainder of the litigation and into
the future.” Id.Atkinson presented no summary-judgment evidence to the trial
court that Johnson issued or authorized the implementation of
SM-06.03 with reckless disregard of the risk that Atkinson
would suffer serious harm to his health from sleep deprivation.
Specifically, Atkinson offered no evidence to controvert an
official’s affidavit stating that the purpose of SM-06.03 is to
reduce inmate altercations and thefts. Atkinson also failed to
show that any substantial risk of harm to him resulting from
No. 03-20123
-4-
implementation of the policy was obvious. See Reeves v. Collins,
27 F.3d 174, 176 (5th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, the district
court did not err by granting summary judgment to Johnson.
AFFIRMED.