537 F. App'x 502
5th Cir.2013Background
- Darron Morgan, a Texas inmate, sued prison officials and physicians under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs after treatments for nasal sores, rash, and related symptoms (2009–2011).
- Treatments at issue included chlorphen antihistamine, a double antibiotic cream (allegedly used internally), Kenalog injections, topical steroids, and later lotions/antihistamines for a rash; Morgan alleges serious side effects and lasting alimentary canal damage.
- Dr. Wolfe (physician) prescribed treatments; Dr. Herrera’s name appeared on a medication pass; William Burgin was the medical grievances manager who handled Morgan’s complaints but was not a clinician.
- The magistrate judge recommended dismissal of some defendants and denial of Morgan’s motions for counsel and discovery; the district court adopted the recommendations, dismissed several claims, and granted summary judgment for Dr. Herrera and Burgin.
- Defendants asserted failure to exhaust administrative remedies (a misplaced grievance existed) and qualified immunity; the Fifth Circuit reviewed the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of Dr. Wolfe and the summary judgment for Herrera and Burgin.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dr. Wolfe’s treatment states an Eighth Amendment claim | Wolfe’s prescriptions (off‑label antibiotic cream; Kenalog injections) caused serious injury and reflected culpable indifference | Treatment, if improper, was at worst negligent or malpractice, not deliberate indifference | Dismissal affirmed — allegations show, at most, malpractice; not deliberate indifference |
| Whether Morgan exhausted administrative remedies re: Herrera and Burgin | Morgan says he exhausted via a fifth grievance that was misplaced by prison officials | Defendants say grievances did not mention them and that plaintiff failed to exhaust | Summary judgment on exhaustion not warranted (defendants failed to prove all elements), but court reached merits and affirmed on other grounds |
| Whether Dr. Herrera is entitled to qualified immunity | Herrera approved/prescribed cream and told Morgan alimentary canal damage was untreatable; that violated rights | Herrera had no evidence of knowledge of a substantial risk or personal involvement; name merely appeared on medication pass | Affirmed — plaintiff failed to show Herrera knew of a substantial risk or violated clearly established law |
| Whether Burgin (grievance manager) is liable for deliberate indifference | Burgin failed to ensure timely treatment and did not arrange escorts, causing delay | Burgin responded to grievances and arranged in‑cell and on‑site care; he was non‑clinical and lacked authority over security escorts | Affirmed — no evidence Burgin personally caused or had authority to prevent the delay; qualified immunity applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (Eighth Amendment requires prison medical care)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (deliberate indifference standard; knowledge of substantial risk)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (PLRA exhaustion is an affirmative defense)
- Stewart v. Murphy, 174 F.3d 530 (5th Cir.) (malpractice vs. constitutional violation)
- Rockwell v. Brown, 664 F.3d 985 (5th Cir.) (qualified immunity framework)
- Dillon v. Rogers, 596 F.3d 260 (5th Cir.) (defendants bear burden to prove failure to exhaust)