Jones v. Tex. Dep't of Criminal Justice

Decision Date29 January 2018
Docket NumberNo. 17-10302,17-10302
Citation880 F.3d 756
Parties Carl David JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant v. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE; Brad Livingston, Executive Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice; Brian Collier, Deputy Executive Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice; Robert Jay Eason, Deputy Executive Director, Correctional Institution Division; Lorie Davis, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division ; et al, Defendants-Appellees
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

880 F.3d 756

Carl David JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE; Brad Livingston, Executive Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice; Brian Collier, Deputy Executive Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice; Robert Jay Eason, Deputy Executive Director, Correctional Institution Division; Lorie Davis, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division ; et al, Defendants-Appellees

No. 17-10302

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

FILED January 29, 2018


Carl David Jones, Pro Se.

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Carl David Jones, Texas prisoner # 1517939, appeals the magistrate judge’s denial of his motion for a preliminary injunction.1 In July 2016, Jones filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting that prison officials exhibited deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Among other things, Jones alleged that he was prescribed a special diet due to his diabetes and that he suffered a stroke on April 3, 2016. Jones further alleged that his prison was placed on a routine lockdown from April 3, 2016, to April 22, 2016, and that, during the lockdown, the food service manager at his prison, Captain Greg Cruise, discontinued his prescribed diet and replaced it with a "sugar based diet." Jones claimed that he sent "numerous written complaints" to Cruise and other personnel, to no avail. He alleged that, after his "blood sugar levels registered above 500," he attempted to file an official grievance with prison authorities, but his form was returned to him after it was deemed "redundant," and he was told that if he attempted to file it again, "he would not get it back." According to Jones, on April 20, 2016, he suffered a heart attack.

Pertinent to the instant appeal, on August 2, 2016, Jones also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. In his motion, Jones provided additional allegations. He stated that on July 15, 2016, his prison was again placed on lockdown following the assault of a corrections officer and that the facility remained on lockdown at the time he filed his motion. Jones further alleged that prison officials again cancelled his prescribed diet, forcing him to consume high-sugar meals up to four times a day, contrary to the orders of Dr. Robert Martin, his unit physician. He specifically alleged that the prison staff’s interference with his prescribed dietary regimen "results in higher blood sugar levels" and "exposes [him] to another stroke or heart attack, or other diabetic complications and consequences that are life threatening." Jones additionally averred that the deprivation of his prescribed diet forced him to inject more insulin to lower his blood-sugar level, thus exposing him to a risk of serious physical injuries in the event his blood-sugar level drops too rapidly.

A magistrate judge denied Jones’s motion for a preliminary injunction, without holding an evidentiary hearing or requesting a response from the defendants.2 Jones filed a timely notice of appeal. In his brief

880 F.3d 759

on appeal, Jones added that, on March 13, 2017, prison officials again placed his unit on a routine lockdown and "resumed the administrative practice that resulted in the improper cancellation of [his] medical treatment plan."

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
55 cases
  • Daves v. Dall. Cnty.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • January 7, 2022
    ...cases involving the framing of equitable remedies to repair the denial of a constitutional right"); Jones v. Tex. Dep't of Crim. Just. , 880 F.3d 756, 759–60 (5th Cir. 2018) (per curiam) (concluding that a federal court could require a prison to provide an inmate with less sugary meals); Ga......
  • All. for Hippocratic Med. v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • August 16, 2023
    ...2018). In reviewing those factors, we review legal conclusions de novo and findings of fact for clear error. Jones v. Tex. Dep't of Crim. Just., 880 F.3d 756, 759 (5th Cir. 2018). The parties agree that these preliminary-injunction factors apply even though the district court entered a stay......
  • Garza v. City of Donna
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • April 26, 2019
    ...v. Woodall , 909 F.3d 130, 136 (5th Cir. 2018) ; Perniciaro v. Lea , 901 F.3d 241, 257 (5th Cir. 2018) ; Jones v. Tex. Dep't of Crim. Justice , 880 F.3d 756, 759 (5th Cir. 2018) ; Grogan v. Kumar , 873 F.3d 273, 277 (5th Cir. 2017) ; Alderson v. Concordia Parish Corr. Facility , 848 F.3d 41......
  • Longoria v. Collier
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • May 24, 2019
    ...the injunction is granted, and (4) that the grant of an injunction will not disserve the public interest." Jones v. Texas Dep't of Criminal Justice, 880 F.3d 756, 759 (5th Cir. 2018) (citations omitted). The Fifth Circuit has cautioned that a preliminary injunction "is an extraordinary reme......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Prisoners' Rights
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 110-Annual Review, August 2022
    • August 1, 2022
    ...off‌icials failed to institute substitute policy despite knowing health risks of postponing care); Jones v. Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Just., 880 F.3d 756, 759-760 (5th Cir. 2018) (8th Amendment claim where diabetic prisoner repeatedly served high-sugar meals because off‌icials ignored off‌icial g......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT