Steward v. Bryan ( 2000 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-60617
Summary Calendar
JAMES A. STEWARD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DOLPH BRYAN; FRANKIE LEO EDMONDS;
GENE AUTRY PERRY; E. CECIL HAMILTON;
DAVID OSWALT; GEORGE CURRY,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:97-CV-118-S
--------------------
September 18, 2000
Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
James A. Steward, Mississippi prisoner # 84896, appeals
the district court’s judgment in favor of the defendants, following
a bench trial, in Steward’s civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Steward alleged that he was placed in solitary confinement
and denied medical care while he was incarcerated in the Oktibbeha
County Jail pending parole revocation. We review the district
court's factual findings for clear error and issues of law are
reviewed de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a); Seal v. Knorpp, 957
F.2d 1230, 1234 (5th Cir. 1992).
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 99-60617
-2-
As Steward had been arrested for probation violations and
was awaiting a probation-revocation hearing at the time in
question, his status was that of a detainee awaiting arraignment.
Hamilton v. Lyons, 74 F.3d 99, 104-06 (5th Cir. 1996). Steward’s
claim is properly categorized as an “episodic act or omission”
claim and should be measured by the standard of subjective
deliberate indifference enunciated by the Supreme Court in Farmer
v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994). Hare v. City of Corinth, 74 F.3d
633, 643 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). A prison official acts with
deliberate indifference “only if he knows that inmates face a
substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by
failing to take reasonable measures to abate it.” Farmer, 511 U.S.
at 847.
Based on Sheriff Bryan’s testimony, the district court
found that Steward was isolated in a holding cell because he was
refusing orders and refusing to take his medication. Steward was
also isolated so that his medical condition could be observed
closely. The district court found that the Sheriff and the head
jailer were both aware of Steward’s condition, monitored his blood
sugar level, consulted with doctors regarding his condition, and
gave him appropriate medication. The judgment of the district
court in their favor based on the evidence presented at trial is
not clearly erroneous and is AFFIRMED.
Steward’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.