Back v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division, 684 F. App'x 356

Plaintiff Robert J. Back, a Texas prisoner with a serious left-leg disability, was denied a Brace and Limb Program (BLP) referral for replacement shoes in September 2012 and experienced a year-long delay obtaining a medical storage box while housed at the Hughes Unit.
Back asserted claims under Title II of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act (RA), § 1983 Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, and § 1983 due‑process and equal‑protection theories; he sought compensatory and punitive damages.
The district court found Back exhausted administrative remedies for ADA/RA, was a qualified disabled person, and had actually been denied the BLP visit and access to a medical box.
The district court granted summary judgment to defendants, concluding the denials amounted to negligence or confusion, not intentional discrimination or deliberate indifference; it also dismissed official‑capacity and certain § 1983 claims on Eleventh Amendment and mootness/no‑personal‑involvement grounds.
Back appealed; the Fifth Circuit affirmed, concluding the record lacked evidence of intentional discrimination (ADA/RA) or deliberate indifference/personal involvement (§ 1983).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
ADA/RA discrimination	BLP denial of shoe referral and delay in medical box were discriminatory based on disability	Denials were negligent or procedural errors, not discrimination based on disability	Summary judgment for defendants — no evidence of intentional discrimination
Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference	Denials and delays constituted wanton disregard of serious medical needs	Single denial/delay was at most negligence; Back received ongoing treatment	Summary judgment for defendants — conduct did not rise to deliberate indifference
§ 1983 due‑process based on grievance handling	Prison officials mishandled grievances, violating due process	Grievance process has no freestanding constitutional right; defendants had no authority over medical decisions	Summary judgment for defendants — no constitutional violation and no personal involvement
Official‑capacity claims / injunctive relief	Sought damages and injunctive/declaratory relief from officials	Official‑capacity damages barred by Eleventh Amendment; injunctive claims moot after transfer	District court rulings affirmed; those issues not challenged on appeal

Frame v. City of Arlington, 657 F.3d 215 (5th Cir. 2011) (Title II ADA prohibits denial of public‑entity services to disabled persons)
Kemp v. Holder, 610 F.3d 231 (5th Cir. 2010) (ADA and RA judged by same legal standards)
Hale v. King, 642 F.3d 492 (5th Cir. 2011) (elements for ADA/RA claim: disability, denial of public benefit, discrimination by reason of disability)
Delano‑Pyle v. Victoria Cty., Tex., 302 F.3d 567 (5th Cir. 2002) (compensatory damages under ADA/RA require intentional discrimination)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (nonmovant must present specific evidence to create genuine factual dispute at summary judgment)
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (summary judgment facts must be genuinely disputed to favor nonmovant)
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (Eighth Amendment prohibits deliberate indifference to prisoners’ serious medical needs)
Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339 (5th Cir. 2006) (negligence or medical malpractice does not establish deliberate indifference)
Thompson v. Steele, 709 F.2d 381 (5th Cir. 1983) (personal involvement is essential for § 1983 liability)