from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas
HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
H. SOUTHWICK, CIRCUIT JUDGE.
pretrial detainee sued Harris County, Texas and county jail
officials for allegedly violating his constitutional rights
by being deliberately indifferent to his health, safety, and
medical needs. He also sued a prison nurse for retaliation
and Harris County for negligence under Texas law. The
district court dismissed some of the claims on the pleadings
and granted summary judgment for the defendants on all
others. We AFFIRM.
AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Baughman was in custody of the Harris County, Texas
Sheriff's Office at the time the events relevant to this
suit took place. On November 11, 2015, sheriff deputies
transported him to a hospital from which he was discharged
the next day. Deputy Sheriff Richard Pruitt picked Baughman
up at the hospital in a sheriff's-office van to return
him to jail. Baughman alleges that during this ride, Deputy
Pruitt drove recklessly and caused Baughman, who was
handcuffed, shackled, and not secured by a seatbelt, to be
thrown out of his seat and injured when the van lurched after
hitting a pothole or speed bump.
further claims that once back at the jail, he sought medical
attention but was rebuffed by the jail's medical staff.
Those responsible are said to be Nurse Henri Madiko, unknown
Nurse Jane Doe, Deputy Bryan Durham, and Drs. Stephan
Williams and M. Haque. Baughman also alleges that Drs.
Williams and Haque, along with another sheriff-office doctor,
David Solce, generally denied him appropriate treatment.
Baughman claims that two and a half weeks after the van ride,
another nurse, Kellie Johnson, refused to administer his
medication and then retaliated against him after he filed an
administrative complaint against her.
pro se, Baughman sued Deputy Pruitt, Nurse Madiko,
Nurse Jane Doe, Deputy Durham, Dr. Williams, Dr. Solce, and
Nurse Johnson in their individual capacities. He also sued
the jail's interim Executive Director for Health Services
Dr. Marcus Guice and the former sheriff of Harris County Ron
Hickman for their supervisory roles. He brought his suit
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming deliberate indifference
to his health, safety, and medical needs. Baughman also
asserted a retaliation claim against Nurse Johnson. Seeking
county liability, he further sued Harris County along with
Dr. Guice and Sheriff Hickman in their official capacities.
Last, Baughman asserted a negligence claim under the Texas
Tort Claims Act against Harris County. Baughman requested a
declaration that his rights had been violated along with
injunctive relief and damages.
Pruitt, Nurse Madiko, Deputy Durham, Sheriff Hickman, Harris
County, Dr. Guice, and Nurse Johnson filed a joint motion for
summary judgment. Drs. Williams and Haque filed separate
motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6). Nurse Jane Doe and Doctor Solce were never served,
but the district court evaluated the claims against them
under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The district court
dismissed all of the federal claims and declined to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the Texas-law claim. The
district court also dismissed Baughman's motions for
appointment of counsel and a stay.
appealed, contending the district court erred when it
dismissed his claims and refused to appoint counsel. He also
filed a motion for appointment of counsel in this court. Drs.
Williams and Haque filed a motion in this court for leave to
file a sur-reply or alternatively to strike portions of
Baughman's reply brief. These motions have been carried
with the case.
district court dismissed some of the claims as failing to
state a claim and granted summary judgment on others. "A
dismissal for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) is
reviewed 'de novo, accepting all well-pleaded
facts as true and viewing those facts in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff.'" Whitaker v.
Collier, 862 F.3d 490, 496-97 (5th Cir. 2017) (citation
omitted). A provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act
incorporates similar analysis by allowing dismissal if the
suit is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii). A separate provision
requiring a district court to screen prisoner cases before
docketing them allows dismissal for similar reasons. §
review of the grant of summary judgment is "de
novo, viewing 'all facts and evidence in the light
most favorable to the non-moving party'" and
ensuring "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." Burell v. Prudential
Ins. Co. of Am., 820 F.3d 132, 136 (5th Cir. 2016)