Troy Bishop v. David Karney
408 F. App'x 846
5th Cir.2011Background
- Bishop, a Texas prisoner, sues over his transfer from the Step Down Program by Dr. Karney, alleging retaliation for prior litigation against prison medical staff and deliberate indifference to his health and safety.
- Bishop further alleges that Zonia Scott confiscated his self-help law books in retaliation for a lawsuit, and that Rowland ordered chemical agents sprayed on him for filing a grievance.
- The district court granted summary judgment against Bishop on all claims; Bishop’s claims against Scott and Rowland were deemed abandoned.
- Karney is a licensed psychiatrist under contract with TDCJ; he is a state actor for purposes of §1983.
- The court affirmed dismissal, holding Karney entitled to qualified immunity and finding no deliberate-indifference or retaliation justiciable issues remaining for resolution.
- The denial of appointment of counsel is deemed moot because the case is resolved on the merits and the district court’s judgment is affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Karney’s transfer of Bishop from the Step Down Program violated his rights. | Bishop contends Karney acted with retaliatory animus. | Karney acted under qualified immunity because his actions were objectively reasonable. | Karney entitled to qualified immunity; no clear violation established. |
| Whether Karney’s transfer showed deliberate indifference to Bishop’s health and safety. | Transfer harmed Bishop’s health/safety due to inadequate care. | Bishop received ongoing medical/mental-health treatment; no deliberate indifference. | No genuine issue of material fact; no deliberate indifference. |
| Whether the district court properly dismissed/abandoned claims against Scott and Rowland. | Claims against Scott/Rowland were actionable and should be reached on summary judgment. | Bishop abandoned these claims by not addressing their basis on appeal. | Claims deemed abandoned; affirmed on other grounds. |
| Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment against Bishop on any remaining claims. | There were material disputes that precluded summary judgment. | Evidence did not create genuine disputes; qualified immunity applied to Karney. | Summary judgment affirmed; no genuine disputes warranting denial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dillon v. Rogers, 596 F.3d 260 (5th Cir. 2010) (standard for reviewing summary judgment on appeal)
- Hughes v. Johnson, 191 F.3d 607 (5th Cir. 1999) (claims deemed abandoned when not addressed on appeal)
- United States v. Brace, 145 F.3d 247 (5th Cir. 1998) (court not required to locate factual disputes in record for summary judgment)
- West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (U.S. 1988) (private doctor under state contract is a state actor for §1983)
- Michalik v. Hermann, 422 F.3d 252 (5th Cir. 2005) (two-prong qualified-immunity analysis)
- Collins v. Ainsworth, 382 F.3d 529 (5th Cir. 2004) (tests for clearly established rights in qualified-immunity inquiry)
- Brown v. Miller, 519 F.3d 231 (5th Cir. 2008) (clarifies clearly established standard for qualified immunity)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1976) (deliberate indifference standard in medical-care Eighth Amendment context)
- Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (U.S. 1991) (deliberate indifference requires objectively serious medical needs)
- Babb v. Dorman, 33 F.3d 472 (5th Cir. 1994) (plaintiff must show officer could not reasonably believe actions were proper)