Pedro Garcia v. G. Currie, 674 F. App'x 432

Plaintiff Pedro Tiempo Garcia, a Texas prisoner, sued prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging constitutional violations arising from a post-visitation incident.
Officers observed Garcia orally ingesting small objects passed by a visitor; he was placed in dry cell isolation and later in solitary confinement.
Conditions in dry cell: clothed in a paper gown, cold bare cell, no soap, no daily showers, limited access to running water and toilet paper.
District court granted summary judgment for defendants and dismissed the complaint with prejudice; Garcia appealed.
Garcia also moved for appointed counsel; the district court denied the motion and that denial was challenged on appeal.
The district court dismissed official-capacity money damages claims as barred by the Eleventh Amendment; Garcia did not appeal that ruling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Appointment of counsel	Garcia argued counsel was needed to pursue complex civil-rights claims	Denial appropriate; no exceptional circumstances warranting appointment	Denial affirmed — no abuse of discretion (no exceptional circumstances)
Eleventh Amendment — official-capacity damages	Garcia sought money damages against officials in official capacity	Defendants argued Eleventh Amendment bars such claims	Dismissal affirmed by default (Garcia abandoned challenge on appeal)
Eighth Amendment — conditions in dry cell isolation	Conditions were inhumane and violated Eighth Amendment	Conditions were harsh but related to legitimate penological interest of preventing drug introduction	No Eighth Amendment violation — conditions did not constitute threat to health beyond discomfort/inconvenience
Due Process — placement without charge or hearing	Placement in dry cell (44 hrs) and solitary (38 days) without hearing violated due process	Confinement did not lengthen sentence or implicate a protected liberty interest	No due process violation — Sandin principle: no liberty interest implicated

Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209 (5th Cir. 1982) (appointment of counsel in civil rights actions requires exceptional circumstances)
Cupit v. Jones, 835 F.2d 82 (5th Cir. 1987) (standards for appointment of counsel reviewed)
Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337 (1981) (Eighth Amendment prohibits conditions that are cruel and unusual, not mere discomfort)
Talib v. Gilley, 138 F.3d 211 (5th Cir. 1998) (applying Rhodes to prison conditions and legitimate penological interests)
Wilson v. Lynaugh, 878 F.2d 846 (5th Cir. 1989) (Eighth Amendment protects against conditions that threaten health, not mere inconvenience)
Madison v. Parker, 104 F.3d 765 (5th Cir. 1997) (due process does not protect every adverse change in confinement conditions)
Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995) (protected liberty interest arises only when disciplinary actions impose atypical and significant hardship)
Orellana v. Kyle, 65 F.3d 29 (5th Cir. 1995) (placement that does not lengthen sentence does not create protected liberty interest)
Hughes v. Johnson, 191 F.3d 607 (5th Cir. 1999) (issues not raised in opening brief are abandoned on appeal)
Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222 (5th Cir. 1993) (same: appellate waiver for unchallenged rulings)
Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744 (5th Cir. 1987) (appellate abandonment principles)