Lewis v. Lynn
| Decision Date | 11 January 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 00-30783,00-30783 |
| Citation | 236 F.3d 766 |
| Parties | (5th Cir. 2001) CHARLES E. LEWIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BRUCE N. LYNN; ET AL., Defendants BUDDY BRYON; L. LEMOINE Defendants-Appellees. (Summary Calendar) |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Appeal from the United States District Court For the Middle District of Louisiana.
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
Charles Lewis, an inmate at Louisiana State Penitentiary, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit against various prison officials, alleging that he had been required to perform certain field work despite his asthma ailment. He appeals the district court's denial of his motions for default judgment and for the appointment of legal counsel. We affirm.
On three different occasions in 1991, Lewis had been ordered to perform hoe work on a dusty road, to assist digging a ditch, and to help other inmates spread dirt. He complained to prison officials that he could not perform such work because of his asthma. Lewis had earlier received a limited duty status because of this ailment. Upon receiving Lewis' complaints, the prison officials contacted the medical staff at the Louisiana State Penitentiary, which informed them that the assigned work did not violate Lewis' medical duty status. The prison officials told Lewis to resume his work and to seek further medical attention if warranted.
Lewis filed a § 1983 lawsuit against various prison officials, alleging that they had violated his Eighth Amendment right by forcing him to perform these tasks. All of the prison officials——except Bryan Budde and Leonard Lemoine, both of whom no longer worked at the Louisiana State Penitentiary——answered Lewis' complaint and filed a summary judgment motion.1 The court granted the summary judgment motion in favor of the defendants. Lewis then sought a default judgment against Budde and Lemoine. Adopting the magistrate judge's finding, the district court refused to enter a default judgment because it held that Lewis' allegations, even if found true, were insufficient to establish § 1983 liability. Additionally, the district court sua sponte determined that the summary judgment granted to the appearing defendants accrued to the benefit of Lemoine and Budde. The court also denied Lewis' request for an appointment of counsel. Lewis appeals these decisions.
We review a denial of a default judgment for abuse of discretion. See Mason v. Lister, 562 F.2d 343, 345 (5th Cir. 1977) () The district court did not err in refusing to enter a default judgment in favor of Lewis. The Fifth Circuit has held that a "party is not entitled to a default judgment as a matter of right, even where the defendant is technically in default." Ganther v. Ingle, 75 F.3d 207, 212 (5th Cir. 1996). In fact, "[d]efault judgments are a drastic remedy, not favored by the Federal Rules and resorted to by courts only in extreme situations." Sun Bank of Ocala v. Pelican Homestead and Savings Ass'n., 874 F.2d 274, 276 (5th Cir. 1989).
The district court refused to enter a default judgment because it held that Lewis' factual allegations, even if found true, could not impose liability against Lemoine and Budde. Cf. Black v. Lane, 22 F.3d 1395, 1399 (7th Cir. 1994) () An inmate pursuing a constitutional claim needs to show that prison officials demonstrated "deliberate indifference to inmate health or safety." Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 1977 (1994) (). In this case, Lewis has not pleaded that prison officials knowingly exposed him to health or safety risks. In fact, Lewis conceded in his complaint that prison officials told him to continue working only after consulting with the prison hospital staff, which informed them that Lewis was capable of such tasks. We cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a default judgment.
Furthermore, we hold that the district court did not err in allowing Lemoine and Budde to benefit from the appearing defendants' favorable ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Akins v. Liberty Cnty.
...similarly situated defendants." Bloch v. Samuels, No. H-04-4861, 2006 WL 2239016, at *9 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 3, 2006) (citing Lewis v. Lynn, 236 F.3d 766, 768 (5th Cir. 2001)); see Armenta v. Pryor, 377 F. App'x 413, 415 n.1 (5th Cir. 2010); United States v. Peerless Ins. Co., 374 F.2d 942, 945 ......
-
Doe v. Qi
...a default judgment, has an independent duty to determine the sufficiency of a claim, as stated in Rule 55(b)(2) ..."); Lewis v. Lynn, 236 F.3d 766, 767 (5th Cir.2001) (in constitutional action prison officials, district court did not abuse its discretion in denying default judgment when pla......
-
True The Vote v. Hosemann
...by the moving Defendants apply equally to all Defendants, the Court deems these arguments made by all Defendants. See Lewis v. Lynn, 236 F.3d 766, 768 (5th Cir.2001) (quoting United States v. Peerless Ins. Co., 374 F.2d 942, 945 (4th Cir.1967) (citations omitted)) (recognizing that when one......
-
Jones v. Luthi, C.A. No. 6:06-2202-PMD.
...situated, even if not jointly and severally liable, so as to avoid inconsistent judgments against multiple defendants); Lewis v. Lynn, 236 F.3d 766, 768 (5th Cir.2001) (allowing non-answering defendants to benefit from the favorable ruling on the appearing party's summary judgment motion be......
-
U.S. Appeals Court: WORK ASSIGNMENT.
...v. Lynn 236 F.3d 766 (5th Cir. 2001). A state prison inmate brought a [sections] 1983 action against current and former prison officials, alleging he had been forced to do field work for which he was medically unfit due to asthma, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The district court ent......