Gamble v. Estelle, 74-3727
| Decision Date | 22 June 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 74-3727,74-3727 |
| Parties | J. W. GAMBLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. W. J. ESTELLE, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
J. W. Gamble, pro se.
Daniel K. Hedges (Court-appointed), Houston, Tex., for plaintiff-appellant.
John L. Hill, Atty. Gen., Bert W. Pluymen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, Tex., for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
Before CLARK, Associate Justice, * and GOLDBERG and AINSWORTH, Circuit Judges. **
This case is before us again on remand from the United States Supreme Court with directions to consider, in light of the Supreme Court's opinion in Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976) whether J. W. Gamble, a state inmate, has stated an 8th Amendment constitutional claim against the Director of the Department of Corrections (Director) and the warden of the prison arising out of medical treatment he received at the Texas Department of Corrections. We have carefully examined the record and conclude that Gamble has failed to state such a claim.
The standard set forth by the Supreme Court by which we make this determination is as follows: if the inmate is the victim of "deliberate indifference to serious medical needs" in any manifestation, he states an 8th Amendment cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. However, this "deliberate indifference" must be just that an accidental or inadvertent failure to provide adequate care will not suffice for § 1983 purposes.
Here Gamble has failed to meet the rigorous guidelines described above. His complaint is directed primarily at the prison physician who actually performs the medical treatment, while the Director and the warden are parties, not for having failed to provide treatment, but more on respondeat superior principles in line with their official capacities. We can find no evidence in the record that either exhibited"deliberate indifference" to Gamble's medical needs by means of interference with the prison doctor's performance or in any other manner which would satisfy the Supreme Court standard.
Therefore, we affirm the order of the District Court dismissing the complaint against the Director and the warden.
* Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Retired, sitting by designation.
** Justice Clark concurred in the above opinion before his death June 13, 1977.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clappier v. Flynn
...the federal cause of action. Our starting point is Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976), Remanded, 554 F.2d 653 (5th Cir. 1977). The Supreme Court there held that to prevail in a Section 1983 suit based on cruel and unusual punishment, a prisoner must prove th......
-
Watts v. Morgan
...may state a cause of action under section 1983. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976), on remand, 554 F.2d 653 (5th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 974, 98 S.Ct. 530, 54 L.Ed.2d 465 (1977). However, in order to state such a claim, a strict standard is imposed......
-
Rogers v. Jarrett
...24. Batyukova v. Doege, 994 F.3d 717, 726 (5th Cir. 2021) (cleaned up). 25. 429 U.S. at 107-08, 97 S.Ct. 285. 26. 554 F.2d 653, 653-54 (5th Cir. 1977) (per curiam). 27. 35 F.4th 945 (5th Cir. 2022). 28. Jackson v. Gautreaux, 3 F.4th 182, 188 n.* (5th Cir. 2021). 29. See FED. R. APP. P. 28(j......
-
Partridge v. Two Unknown Police Officers of City of Houston, Tex.
...fact that Gamble filed his complaint pro se, he was held not to have stated a claim upon which relief could be granted, Gamble v. Estelle, 554 F.2d 653 (5th Cir.1977) (on remand), and yet, no allegations even comparable to the rejected allegations of Estelle v. Gamble have been made in the ......
-
State Prisoners, Federal Courts, and Playing by the Rules: an Analysis of the Aldisert Committee's Recommended Procedures for Handling Prisoner Civil Rights Cases
...the 24 page, handwritten complaint in Gamble v. Estelle, 516 F.2d 937 (5th Cir. 1975), rev'd and remanded, 429 U.S. 97 (1976), on remand, 554 F.2d 653 (5th Cir. 1977). The literature generally assumes that pro se complaints are prolix and illegible. See, e.g., Aldisert Report, supra note 19......