Varnado v. Lynaugh, 90-2684
| Citation | 920 F.2d 320 |
| Decision Date | 09 January 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-2684,90-2684 |
| Parties | Edward Charles VARNADO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James A. LYNAUGH, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
Edward C. Varnado, Rosharon, Tex., pro se.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM and JONES, Circuit Judges.
Edward Charles Varnado has had hip problems since 1967, well before his incarceration in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division. He has had several operations. A prosthetic device was implanted in his hip at John Sealy Hospital in Galveston in 1985 during his incarceration. He was discharged from John Sealy and returned to his unit two months after the surgery. For 16 months after his return to the unit, Varnado was served his meals in the unit infirmary so that he would not have to stand in line and carry his own tray in the general population dining hall. Such a privilege is known as having a "diet card."
In June 1987, 18 months after surgery, unit medical personnel determined that the construction of new ramps in the general population dining hall obviated Varnado's need for a diet card. For most of three months--June, July, and August 1987--Varnado took his meals with the general population. He alleges that he stood in the serving line 45 to 60 minutes for each meal. In August 1987, he was transferred to a unit for handicapped prisoners.
He claimed that during the period in which he ate with the general population, he experienced pain in his hip. Physicians at John Sealy determined that wires in the prosthesis had broken and that Varnado would need another operation. Varnado attributed the pain and the breaking of the wires to his standing in line for prolonged periods waiting to be served food.
Pro se and in forma pauperis, he has sued prison officials pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, claiming that the revocation of the diet card resulted in the breaking of the wires, which resulted in pain and the necessity for another operation. He claims inadequate medical treatment. The district court held a hearing in conformity with Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir.1985). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(a), the district court dismissed the action as frivolous. Varnado has timely filed notice of appeal.
"To state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 for denial of medical treatment, a prisoner must allege deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs." Woodall v. Foti, 648 F.2d 268, 272 (5th Cir. Unit A June 1981) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976)). A dismissal is proper if "the claim's realistic chance of ultimate success is slight [or] the claim has no arguable basis in law and fact." Pugh v. Parish of St. Tammany, 875 F.2d 436, 438 (5th Cir.1989).
Varnado contends that the revocation of his diet card was, or resulted in, cruel and unusual punishment. Varnado's prison medical records show, however, that he was seen by medical personnel on his unit and at John Sealy numerous times for problems relating to his hip. Varnado's prison medical record deals almost exclusively with his hip problem. Such records also show that medical personnel determined that the opening of ramps in the dining hall made the diet card unnecessary. Varnado's contentions amount to a disagreement with his medical treatment; he only argues that the use of the ramps did not meet his needs and exacerbated his hip problem, contentions that fall short of a constitutional or federal claim.
Unsuccessful medical treatment does not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mathis v. Brazoria Cnty. Sheriff's Office
...treatments, and medications may rebut allegations of deliberate indifference in denying or delaying medical care. See Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320 (5th Cir. 1991). Mathis claims that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs by failing to treat him for fo......
-
Rodriguez v. Bexar Cnty. Hosp. Dist.
...178 (5th Cir. 1992) (holding "deliberate indifference" is the intentional denial or delay of access to medical care); Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991) (holding unsuccessful medical treatment does not give rise to a § 1983 cause of action for deliberate indifference to a......
-
Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass'n
...exception to the general rule that issues not raised in district court will not be considered on appeal. See, e.g., Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir.1991) (brackets, internal quotation marks, and citations omitted) ("Issues raised for the first time on appeal are not reviewabl......
-
Wingard v. Louisiana
...v. Seiter , 501 U.S. 294, 298, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 115 L.Ed.2d 271 (1991) ).131 Cormier , 2019 WL 2438784 at *2, citing Varnado v. Lynaugh , 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991).132 Cormier , 2019 WL 2438784 at *2, citing Hernandez v. Tex. Dep't of Prot. and Reg. Servs. , 380 F.3d 872, 882 (5th Ci......
-
He's the uterus collector' the reproductive rights of women in ice detention: an opportunity to protect the constitutional rights of federal detainees in privately run facilities
...claim for protection of their constitutional rights. The first is the Supreme Court’s persistent annexing of citing Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991); then citing Jackson v. Cain, 864 F.2d 1235, 1246 (5th Cir. 1989); and then citing Johnson v. Treen, 759 F.2d 1236, 1238......
-
Section 1983 Civil Liability Against Prison Officials and Dentists for Delaying Dental Care
...56 F.3d 1385 (5th Cir. 1995).Torraco v. Maloney, 923 F.2d 231 (1st Cir. 1991).Trop v. Dulles, 365 U.S. 86 (1958).Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320 (5th Cir. 1991).Vasquez v. Dretke, 226 Fed.Appx. 338 (5th Cir. 2007).Williams v. Mason, 210 Fed.Appx. 389 (5th Cir. 2006).Williams v. York, 891 F......