Parrott v. Sizemore ( 2022 )

Case: 20-40586 Document: 00516350190 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/09/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 9, 2022
No. 20-40586
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Jimmie Mark Parrott, Jr.,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Michael Sizemore,
Defendant—Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:19-CV-214
Before Clement, Graves, and Costa, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Plaintiff-Appellant Jimmie Mark Parrott, Jr., an inmate in Texas
proceeding pro se, sued various officials in the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice, alleging violations of his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments by refusing to provide necessary medical care. The district
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-40586 Document: 00516350190 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/09/2022
No. 20-40586
court, on a magistrate judge’s recommendation, dismissed Parrott’s federal
claims with prejudice for failure to state a claim. We AFFIRM.
I.
Parrott sued Defendant-Appellee Michael Sizemore, a practice
manager with the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB), and various
doctors and Texas prison officials. Only Parrott’s claims against Sizemore
are presented in this appeal. UTMB is a state agency that provides medical
care through Correctional Managed Care to inmates at the Powledge Unit,
where Parrott was housed at the times relevant to this suit. Parrott alleges
that between August 8, 2018, and February 16, 2019, Sizemore knew that
Parrott required immediate medical attention for back injuries, but Sizemore
deliberately denied Parrott medical treatment, resulting in permanent nerve
damage. Parrott says that Sizemore, as UTMB practice manager, was
responsible for coordinating medical care for prisoners. Parrott also alleges
that a prison nurse told him that Sizemore had instructed the nurses not to
schedule appointments for Parrott, in a scheme to have him relocated from
the Powledge Unit. Challenging the withholding of medical care, Parrott filed
several grievances, which Sizemore summarily denied without taking any
steps to ameliorate Parrott’s poor health. In one grievance, Parrott said that
he had an appointment in November 2018 to be seen by an orthopedic
specialist, but after a painful, three-day van ride, he was told that his
appointment had been rescheduled because he was late. In addition to his
federal constitutional claims, Parrott asserts various state law claims against
Sizemore, such as fraud and negligence.
Sizemore moved to dismiss. He first asserted immunity under the
Eleventh Amendment, though Parrott would later clarify that he sued
Sizemore in his individual capacity. Sizemore argued, in the alternative under
2
Case: 20-40586 Document: 00516350190 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/09/2022
No. 20-40586
rule 12(b)(6), that Parrott failed to establish that Sizemore violated Parrott’s
rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
A magistrate judge recommended that Parrott’s claims against
Sizemore be dismissed with prejudice under rule 12(b)(6). The magistrate
judge opined that Parrott had not “suffered deliberate indifference with
regard to the medical treatment he received.” The magistrate judge rejected
as hearsay Parrott’s reliance on the statement by the nurse that Sizemore
ordered staff to refuse to schedule appointments for Parrott. The magistrate
judge cited caselaw suggesting that practice managers are neither medical
providers nor supervisors of medical providers, and the magistrate judge also
concluded that, even if Sizemore is a supervisor, he was not a policymaker or
a moving force behind Parrott’s injuries. Over Parrott’s objections, the
district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendations and
dismissed Parrott’s federal claims against Sizemore with prejudice. Parrott
timely appealed, and the district court granted him leave to proceed in forma
pauperis.
II.
Parrott pursues this litigation pro se. We therefore liberally construe
his filings. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–21 (1972). Parrott contends
that Sizemore is a medical provider, and Sizemore’s repeated disregard for
Parrott’s medical needs amounts to deliberate indifference in violation of the
Eighth Amendment. Parrott also disputes the district court’s rejection of the
nurse’s statement as hearsay because the medical staff in fact refused to
schedule medical appointments for him. Finally, Parrott contends that
because he established the district court’s jurisdiction over his federal
constitutional claims, the district court also erred in declining to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Parrott’s state claims.
3
Case: 20-40586 Document: 00516350190 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/09/2022
No. 20-40586
We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under rule 12(b)(6).
Sw. Bell Tel., LP v. City of Hous., 529 F.3d 257, 260 (5th Cir. 2008). To
survive a rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, Parrott must plead “enough facts
to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). We accept as true all well-pled factual
allegations in the complaint but we do “not credit conclusory allegations or
allegations that merely restate the legal elements of a claim.” Chhim v. Univ.
of Tex. at Austin, 836 F.3d 467, 469 (5th Cir. 2016). “The Rule 12(b)(6)
analysis is generally confined to a review of the complaint and its proper
attachments.” Walch v. Adjutant Gen.’s Dep’t of Tex., 533 F.3d 289, 293 (5th
Cir. 2008).
The district court correctly concluded that Parrott’s allegations do
not rise to the level of deliberate indifference. Parrott alleges that from
August 8, 2018, to February 16, 2019, Sizemore “was aware that [Parrott
was] in need of immediate medical attention by a licensed orthopedic
specialist for back injuries” but “denied [him] medical treatment.”
However, Parrott’s pleadings, which relate the medical care he received,
contradict his allegation that Sizemore did nothing to ensure he received
medical treatment. Specifically, Parrott states that he: was prescribed and
provided various pain medications; was ordered to restrict his movement;
and was scheduled, three separate times, for appointments with an
orthospine clinic in Galveston and that he saw an orthopedic resident there.
Although Parrott missed two of these appointments because he was not
timely transported, Parrott does not allege that Sizemore had anything to do
with the transport drivers being late. In fact, Parrott stated in his complaint
that another defendant named Dennis Crowley was responsible for
transporting prisoners to and from outside medical appointments. While
Parrott complains that this treatment was ineffective, dissatisfaction with a
treatment plan does not amount to deliberate indifference. See Norton v.
4
Case: 20-40586 Document: 00516350190 Page: 5 Date Filed: 06/09/2022
No. 20-40586
Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286, 292 (5th Cir. 1997). The Supreme Court has
indicated that deliberate indifference, in this context, requires Parrott to
allege that Sizemore “refused to treat him, ignored his complaints, [or]
intentionally treated him incorrectly.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 107
(1976). None of Parrott’s allegations, which describe negligence rather than
malice, meet this “extremely high” standard. Domino v. Tex. Dep’t of
Criminal Justice, 239 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir. 2001).
Parrott also alleges that on February 6, 2019, he filed a nursing sick
call about being denied medical appointments. Nurse Huffmeyer then told
him that Sizemore had instructed all of the nurses to deny him provider
appointments because Sizemore wanted Parrott transferred out of the
Powledge Unit. Parrott filed a grievance that same day, but Sizemore denied
it. On February 16, 2019, Parrott was reassigned to the Stiles Unit in
Beaumont. The magistrate judge rejected this claim as hearsay. The
magistrate judge erred in concluding that he could not consider, on a rule
12(b)(6) motion, statements that might be hearsay. We have never held that
hearsay justifies dismissal at the rule 12(b)(6) stage, where plaintiffs need
only plead plausible facts, not support those allegations with admissible
evidence. See Lone Star Fund V (U.S.), L.P. v. Barclays Bank PLC, 594 F.3d
383, 387 (5th Cir. 2010). But the magistrate judge nonetheless correctly noted
that Parrott has not plausibly alleged that Sizemore had authority to direct
the nursing staff’s healthcare decisions, and Parrott also does not allege that
any treatment was withheld because of the alleged statement. See Criollo v.
Milton, 414 F. App’x 719, 721 (5th Cir. 2011) (affirming in part dismissal of a
prisoner’s Eighth Amendment claim against a practice manager because the
prisoner had “not shown how [the] practice manager . . . had any role in his
medical treatment”). Thus, even if Sizemore had any supervisory authority
over the nursing staff, Parrott has not shown Sizemore’s personal
involvement in any constitutional violation, a requirement for supervisory
5
Case: 20-40586 Document: 00516350190 Page: 6 Date Filed: 06/09/2022
No. 20-40586
liability under § 1983. Cf. Evett v. DETNTFF, 330 F.3d 681, 689 (5th Cir.
2003) (“[A] plaintiff must show either the supervisor personally was
involved in the constitutional violation or that there is a sufficient causal
connection between the supervisor’s conduct and the constitutional
violation.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).
Parrott also complains that Sizemore summarily denied his
grievances. But a prisoner has no federally protected liberty interests in
having grievances resolved to his or her satisfaction. Gbeiger v. Jowers, 404
F.3d 371, 374 (5th Cir. 2005). The district court therefore did not err in
rejecting Parrott’s grievance-based claims.
Finally, because the district court correctly concluded that Parrott has
not stated a plausible federal claim, the district court did not err in declining
to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Parrott’s state law claims. See
Brookshire Bros. Holding, Inc. v. Dayco Prods., Inc., 554 F.3d 595, 602 (5th Cir.
2009) (noting district courts’ discretion to “decline to exercise jurisdiction
over remaining state-law claims when all federal-law claims are eliminated
before trial”). Thus, the district court acted within its discretion in
dismissing Parrott’s state law claims without prejudice.
AFFIRMED.
6