Jerry Wanzer v. Debra Gloor
691 F. App'x 191
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Jerry Wanzer, a Texas prisoner, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit alleging (1) deliberate indifference to serious medical needs and (2) denial of access to the courts; he also alleged ineffective assistance of counsel in the civil case.
- The magistrate judge (consenting to the parties) granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment; Wanzer appealed.
- Wanzer claimed prison officials either withheld or provided insufficient medical care and that seizure of his legal materials impaired his ability to litigate.
- Defendants showed that each was either not personally involved in Wanzer’s medical care or provided adequate treatment/assistance.
- Wanzer presented no evidence that the seizure of materials caused an actual injury to his litigation efforts.
- The district court granted qualified immunity to the defendants; the panel affirmed and declined to address Wanzer’s ineffective-assistance claim because that right does not apply in civil proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs | Wanzer argued officials refused or provided constitutionally inadequate care for his medical/eye problems | Defendants argued lack of personal involvement or that they provided sufficient treatment | No genuine issue of material fact; summary judgment for defendants affirmed |
| Denial of access to the courts | Wanzer argued seizure of materials impeded his ability to litigate | Defendants argued seizure did not cause actual injury to litigation | Wanzer failed to show actual injury; summary judgment affirmed |
| Qualified immunity | N/A — tied to merits: defendants lacked clearly established violation | Defendants argued qualified immunity protects them because no constitutional violation shown | Court held defendants entitled to qualified immunity |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (in civil case) | Wanzer raised ineffective-assistance claim | Defendants argued right does not apply in civil cases | Court declined to review because ineffective-assistance right is inapplicable to civil proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339 (5th Cir.) (defines deliberate indifference standard in prisoner medical claims)
- Xtreme Lashes, LLC v. Xtended Beauty, Inc., 576 F.3d 221 (5th Cir.) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (U.S.) (access-to-courts claim requires showing of actual injury)
- Ruiz v. United States, 160 F.3d 273 (5th Cir.) (discusses actual-injury requirement for access-to-courts claims)
- Harris v. Victoria Indep. Sch. Dist., 168 F.3d 216 (5th Cir.) (addresses qualified immunity in civil-rights cases)
- Sanchez v. United States Postal Serv., 785 F.2d 1236 (5th Cir.) (ineffective-assistance right does not apply to civil proceedings)
- Jackson v. United States Postal Serv., 666 F.2d 258 (5th Cir.) (failure to raise a claim below precludes appellate consideration)