Garry Rose v. William Sherman
676 F. App'x 258
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Garry Rose, a Texas prisoner, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference to safety against prison staff after injuring his fingers on a band saw on March 31, 2011.
- Rose alleged defendants William Sherman and Bradley Burge knew of band-saw defects in late January 2011; a work order was submitted January 25, 2011, and prison records show the blade was realigned and a knob tightened February 23, 2011.
- Burge rigged a temporary repair with a screw and washer after Sherman reported the issue; there is no record that Sherman or Burge were told of any further problems before Rose’s injury.
- Rose disputed the accuracy of the repair/work-order records and argued the defendants had a duty under prison policy to inspect machines regularly.
- The district court dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(c); Rose appealed only as to Sherman and Burge; other claims were abandoned on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sherman and Burge were deliberately indifferent to Rose’s safety (Eighth Amendment) | Rose: defendants knew of band-saw defects and failed to ensure a safe machine, leading to injury | Sherman/Burge: they arranged/recorded repairs; no notice of continuing danger; at most negligence | Court: No deliberate indifference; records show repair and no further notice of danger; negligence insufficient |
| Whether complaint plausibly alleged constitutional violation under Rule 12(c)/(b)(6) | Rose: factual allegations and record challenges suffice to survive judgment on pleadings | Defendants: pleadings + authenticated records defeat plausible claim of deliberate indifference | Court: Complaint fails to state plausible Eighth Amendment claim; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity | Rose: claim that rights were clearly established and defendants ignored known hazard | Defendants: no constitutional violation occurred, so immunity applies | Court: Because no constitutional violation shown, qualified immunity applies |
| Whether Rose should be permitted to amend complaint | Rose: sought leave to amend to cure defects | Defendants: (opposed implicitly by prevailing dismissal) | Court: Motion to amend denied as moot on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Gentilello v. Rege, 627 F.3d 540 (5th Cir. 2010) (Rule 12(c) reviewed under Rule 12(b)(6) standard)
- Pratt v. Harris Cnty., Tex., 822 F.3d 174 (5th Cir. 2016) (qualified immunity framework)
- Stewart v. Murphy, 174 F.3d 530 (5th Cir. 1999) (negligence insufficient for deliberate indifference)
- Bowie v. Procunier, 808 F.2d 1142 (5th Cir. 1987) (negligent failure to provide safety equipment does not show deliberate indifference)
- Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744 (5th Cir. 1987) (issues not briefed on appeal are abandoned)