Norton v. Dimazana ( 1997 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals,
    Fifth Circuit.
    No. 96-40912
    Summary Calendar.
    Joseph H. NORTON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    E.U. DIMAZANA, M.D.;   Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Sept. 22, 1997.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
    District of Texas.
    Before WIENER, BARKSDALE and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
    EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judge:
    Texas prisoner Joseph Norton appeals the district court's
    dismissal as frivolous of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging
    that the deliberate indifference of the prison staff to his medical
    needs violated his Eighth Amendment rights.       He also asserts that
    the fee provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act violate his
    right of access to the courts, that the district court abused its
    discretion by employing irregular procedures in deciding his case,
    that the court must provide him a copy of the transcript from his
    in forma pauperis hearing, and that the district court erred by
    denying his motion for counsel.        Finding no reversible error, we
    affirm.
    I
    For years, Norton has experienced serious, painful problems
    associated with a prolapsed rectum; basically he has suffered from
    1
    grossly inflamed external hemorrhoids and encountered difficulties
    in retracting the muscles of his rectum after a bowel movement.            In
    such cases, the muscles of Norton's sphincter are expelled from his
    anus, and reinserting them is too painful for Norton to accomplish
    alone.     Prison medical staff, on many such occasions, rendered
    their assistance.      They also gave Norton supplies, such as gloves
    and lubricants, to aid him in performing the job himself.                 For
    several years, Norton experienced these and associated problems in
    prison.    Over the two-year span preceding this lawsuit, he saw
    medical professionals, both inside and outside the prison, at least
    monthly.     Despite    constant   attention,      Norton's   condition   has
    improved little.
    Norton filed a complaint contending that approximately forty
    prison officials and prison medical staff members were deliberately
    indifferent to his serious medical needs, in violation of his
    Eighth Amendment rights.        Among other things, he complains that
    prison    officials    should   have       attempted   different   diagnostic
    measures or alternative modes of treatment.             He requests damages,
    injunctive relief, and appointment of counsel. Norton also alleged
    that, when the district court required him to provide information
    about his prison trust fund account, prison officials intentionally
    withheld information about the account.                However, the District
    Clerk received the account information in timely enough fashion to
    compute and assess the initial, partial filing fee.
    The district court conducted a hearing on Norton's motion for
    leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("i.f.p.") and on his allegation
    2
    that prison officials intentionally withheld account information.
    At this hearing, the court also sought to focus the issues asserted
    by Norton's complaint, and Norton testified at the hearing about
    the facts he alleged.     The court orally granted Norton leave to
    proceed i.f.p.     Then the court called a recess in the hearing,
    during which it ordered the defense attorney to review Norton's
    medical records.    When the court reconvened, the judge noted that,
    in his opinion, the prison had not ignored Norton's physical
    condition.   The judge nonetheless ordered the defense attorney to
    speak with doctors and file a report regarding Norton's medical
    condition.
    The court subsequently issued a written order denying Norton's
    motion for leave to proceed i.f.p. and assessed a partial filing
    fee of $24 (twenty percent of the $120 district court filing fee),
    as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub.L. No. 104-
    134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996) ("PLRA" or "Act").            See 28 U.S.C. §
    1915(b)(1)-(2) (setting out PLRA fee provisions).
    The attorney for the defendants subsequently filed the report
    requested by the district court, with an attached affidavit by one
    Dr. Owen Murray and a certified copy of Norton's prison medical
    records.     The   district   court   reviewed   the   report,   dismissed
    Norton's complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(1),
    and denied Norton's motion for appointment of counsel as moot.
    Norton timely appealed.
    In an earlier order, we granted Norton's motion for leave to
    proceed i.f.p. on appeal;      assessed a $40 initial, partial filing
    3
    fee for the appeal;   ordered Norton to pay the remainder of the
    $105 filing fee in installments pursuant to the PLRA;    and denied
    Norton's motion for production of a transcript of the i.f.p.
    hearing in the district court.     Norton v. Dimazana, No. 96-40912
    (5th Cir. Feb.27, 1997) (unpublished).    We now address the merits
    of Norton's appeal.
    II
    On appeal, Norton raises five issues:   (1) whether the filing
    fee provisions of the PLRA violate prisoners' right of access to
    the courts; (2) whether the district court erred in dismissing his
    section 1983 suit as frivolous;   (3) whether the erratic procedure
    by which the district court denied him i.f.p. status and dismissed
    his appeal violates Norton's right to due process;      (4) whether
    this court erred in denying his request for a transcript of the
    i.f.p. hearing;    and (5) whether the district court erred in
    denying his motion for appointment of counsel.
    A
    Construing his brief liberally, we first address Norton's
    assertion that the fee provisions of the PLRA deny prisoners
    constitutionally guaranteed access to the courts.     In Bounds v.
    Smith, the Supreme Court articulated a "fundamental constitutional
    right of access to the courts[,]" 
    430 U.S. 817
    , 828, 
    97 S. Ct. 1491
    ,
    1498 
    52 L. Ed. 2d 72
    (1977), which requires prison officials to
    guarantee prisoners a reasonably adequate opportunity to present
    claimed violations of fundamental constitutional rights to the
    courts. Lewis v. Casey, --- U.S. ----, ----, 
    116 S. Ct. 2174
    , 2180,
    4
    
    135 L. Ed. 2d 606
    (1996).        Although other courts have addressed the
    issue, see Nicholas v. Tucker, 
    114 F.3d 17
    , 21 (2d Cir.1997);
    Roller v. Gunn, 
    107 F.3d 227
    , 231-33 (4th Cir.1997), petition for
    cert. filed, --- U.S.L.W. ---- (U.S. No. 97-5072) (June 20, 1997);
    Hampton v. Hobbs, 
    106 F.3d 1281
    (6th Cir.1997), the question of
    whether the PLRA's fee provisions unconstitutionally deny access to
    the courts is an issue of first impression in this circuit.
    Norton    does    not    specify       whether   he   is   challenging   the
    district court's assessment of fees for his original suit, for his
    appeal, or both.   He did not challenge the assessment of a partial
    filing fee in the district court proceeding, and he paid the fee
    that the court imposed.          The district court made no explicit
    findings    regarding    the     constitutionality          of    the   PLRA   fee
    provisions.     We normally review contentions not raised in the
    district court for plain error.          Douglass v. United Services Auto.
    Ass'n, 
    79 F.3d 1415
    , 1428 (5th Cir.1996) (en banc ).               To prevail on
    plain error review, an appellant must show:                  (1) that an error
    occurred;     (2) that the error was plain, which means clear or
    obvious;    (3) the plain error affects substantial rights;               and (4)
    refusal to correct the error would seriously affect the fairness,
    integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Highlands
    Ins. Co. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 
    27 F.3d 1027
    , 1032 (5th
    Cir.1994), cert. denied, 
    513 U.S. 1112
    , 
    115 S. Ct. 903
    , 
    130 L. Ed. 2d 786
    (1995).
    This case is on slightly different footing from the normal
    failure to assert a claim, since a liberal reading of Norton's
    5
    brief also presents a challenge to the imposition of fees on
    appeal. Obviously, Norton could not have challenged the assessment
    of   appellate    fees    during     his     district   court      proceeding.
    Nevertheless, we find that under either plain error or de novo
    review,   the    fee   provision    does     not   unconstitutionally     deny
    prisoners access to the courts.
    The fee provision of the PLRA provides:
    (b)(1) ... [I]f a prisoner brings a civil action or files an
    appeal in forma pauperis, the prisoner shall be required to
    pay the full amount of a filing fee. The court shall assess
    and, when funds exist, collect, as a partial payment of any
    court fees required by law, an initial partial filing fee of
    20 percent of the greater of—
    (A) the average         monthly   deposits   to   the    prisoner's
    account; or
    (B) the average monthly balance in the prisoner's account
    for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing
    of the complaint or notice of appeal.
    (2) After payment of the initial partial filing fee, the
    prisoner shall be required to make monthly payments of 20
    percent of the preceding month's income credited to the
    prisoner's account. The agency having custody of the prisoner
    shall forward payments from the prisoner's account to the
    clerk of the court each time the amount in the account exceeds
    $10 until the filing fees are paid.
    28 U.S.C. § 1915(b), as amended by the PLRA.             The PLRA provides
    that prisoners proceeding i.f.p. are responsible for paying the
    full amount of the filing fee;        however, the statute provides that
    impecunious litigants may pay the fee over time, if necessary.             The
    PLRA also provides that no prisoner shall be denied access to the
    courts because he or she has insufficient funds to pay the initial,
    partial filing fee.      28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4), as amended by the PLRA
    ("In no event shall a prisoner be prohibited from bringing a civil
    6
    action or appealing a civil or criminal judgment for the reason
    that the prisoner has no assets and no means by which to pay the
    initial partial filing fee.").             The federal statute, of course,
    does not affect a prisoner's ability to bring actions in state
    court or through state administrative proceedings.
    "While the precise contours of a prisoner's right of access to
    the courts remain somewhat obscure, the Supreme Court has not
    extended this right to encompass more than the ability of an inmate
    to prepare and transmit a necessary legal document to a court."
    Brewer v. Wilkinson, 
    3 F.3d 816
    , 821 (5th Cir.1993) (footnotes
    omitted), cert. denied, 
    510 U.S. 1123
    , 
    114 S. Ct. 1081
    , 
    127 L. Ed. 2d 397
    (1994).    It is apparent that the fee provisions of the PLRA do
    not hinder prisoners' abilities to prepare or transmit their cases
    or appeals to court.
    To be sure, the Act's fee provisions do change the terms of
    i.f.p. litigation: litigants proceeding under the statute must now
    pay at least part of the fee up front, and whenever able, i.f.p.
    litigants will now be responsible for making monthly installment
    payments toward repaying the full amount of the filing fee (usually
    $105 for an appeal).       28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)-(2);             see also 28
    U.S.C.   §   1913   note   (Judicial       Conference   Schedule    of   Fees).
    Previously, i.f.p. litigants were not responsible for prepaying any
    of the filing fee, and although such litigants technically remained
    liable for the full amount of the fee, few in fact ever paid it.
    See Abdul-Wadood v. Nathan, 
    91 F.3d 1023
    , 1025 (7th Cir.1996) ("All
    § 1915 has ever done is excuse prepayment of docket fees;                    a
    7
    litigant remains liable for them, and for other costs, although
    poverty may make collection impossible.").
    The obligation to pay filing fees, over time if necessary, is
    not an unconstitutional denial of access to the court system.               As
    we have noted before, "there is no absolute "right' to proceed in
    a civil action without paying a filing fee;            this is a procedural
    privilege that Congress may extend or withdraw."               Strickland v.
    Rankin County Corr. Facility, 
    105 F.3d 972
    , 975 (5th Cir.1997);
    Startti v. United States, 
    415 F.2d 1115
    , 1116 (5th Cir.1969).
    Furthermore, section 1915(b)(4) contains an explicit guarantee that
    no prisoner will be barred from pursing a civil action, or from
    appealing a civil or criminal judgment, because he or she does not
    have enough money.    28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4).          This saving provision
    sufficiently guarantees that all prisoners will have access to the
    courts, regardless of their income.           
    Nicholas, 114 F.3d at 21
    .
    The fee provisions of the PLRA, in a sense, level the playing
    field between incarcerated i.f.p. litigants and other litigants in
    the federal courts.    Non-i.f.p. litigants must generally consider
    the cost of filing when deciding whether to bring a civil action or
    appeal in federal courts.       The PLRA changes the rules of i.f.p.
    litigation, requiring indigent prisoners for the first time to make
    the same prudential decisions about the merits of their lawsuits
    that everyone else makes before filing.           Adepegba v. Hammons, 
    103 F.3d 383
    , 386 (5th Cir.1996).      This limits the access of indigent
    prisoners to the courts no more than the filing fee restricts
    non-i.f.p.   litigants.    To    the       contrary,   the   PLRA   provisions
    8
    allowing repayment over time allow impecunious prisoners to bring
    actions even when they are unable to pay filing fees up front.
    This allows them more access to the courts than most non-prisoners
    receive.    We therefore find that the fee provisions of the PLRA do
    not unconstitutionally limit the access of indigent prisoners to
    the courts.
    B
    Norton challenges the district court's dismissal as frivolous
    of his section 1983 suit claiming deliberate indifference to his
    serious medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.                The
    district court dismissed his suit under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), now
    redesignated as § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) by section 804 of the PLRA.               We
    review    district   court   dismissals   as   frivolous     for    abuse   of
    discretion.      McCormick   v.    Stalder,   
    105 F.3d 1059
    ,   1061   (5th
    Cir.1997).
    The district court may dismiss a case as frivolous under
    either the old section 1915(d) or the new section 1915(e)(2)(b)(i)
    if it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact.             
    McCormick, 105 F.3d at 1061
    .    In order to show that his medical care violated the
    Eighth Amendment, Norton must allege that prison officials were
    deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs.             Estelle v.
    Gamble, 
    429 U.S. 97
    , 106, 
    97 S. Ct. 285
    , 292, 
    50 L. Ed. 2d 251
    (1976).
    Deliberate indifference encompasses only unnecessary and wanton
    infliction of pain repugnant to the conscience of mankind.             
    Id. at 105-06,
    97 S.Ct. at 291-92.       "Subjective recklessness," as used in
    the   criminal   law,   is   the    appropriate     test    for    deliberate
    9
    indifference.    Farmer v. Brennan, 
    511 U.S. 825
    , 838-40, 
    114 S. Ct. 1970
    , 1980, 
    128 L. Ed. 2d 811
    (1994).
    It is amply clear that prison officials were neither reckless
    nor deliberately indifferent to Norton's admittedly serious medical
    needs.    In fact, the record demonstrates that quite the opposite
    was true.    There is extensive evidence in the record that prison
    officials afforded Norton a great deal of care and attention.1
    1
    In July of 1994, Norton requested that prison officials grant
    him sick leave from work because the muscles in his rectum would
    not retract. At a subsequent doctor visit, the physician took note
    of Norton's hemorrhoidal condition and prescribed Anusol and
    Metamucil.   The doctor did not note that Norton's rectum was
    prolapsed.
    In August of the same year, Norton submitted another
    sick-call request, again complaining of rectal prolapse and
    pain. A physician diagnosed severe rectal prolapse, but no
    bleeding. The doctor prescribed Psyllium powder, Ibuprofen,
    and more Anusol.    The doctor also referred Norton to a
    proctologist and gave him a lay-in pass for two days.
    Norton was in and out of the hospital often between
    September and December 1994, complaining of constant rectal
    pain.    On his first such visit, the physician diagnosed
    external hemorrhoids, but no rectal prolapse.     The doctor
    continued Norton's prescription for Psyllium and Ibuprofen.
    A week after this visit, Norton went to the prison infirmary
    with a prolapsed rectum. He reported that he had suffered
    such a condition twelve times in the previous year. Doctors
    reinserted Norton's rectum and instructed him to drink water.
    Two weeks later, a nurse had to reinsert Norton's rectum
    again. A physician gave Norton a pass for a plastic donut for
    his hemorrhoids later in October. In early November, Norton
    suffered another prolapsed rectum that he could not
    self-correct. A nurse issued Norton gloves and lubricant for
    future self-reinsertion, prescribed Motrin, and had a nurse
    reinsert Norton's sphincter.
    Norton was back in the prison infirmary in December 1994,
    complaining of a prolapsed rectum and requesting another
    self-care kit. Infirmary staff repositioned Norton's rectum
    and gave him more gloves and lubricant.      In January 1995,
    prison officials changed Norton's medical classification to
    reflect Norton's obvious problems with anal expulsion. The
    10
    The   medical   records   indicate   that   Norton   was   afforded
    extensive medical care by prison officials, who treated him at
    least once a month for several years, prescribed medicine, gave him
    medical supplies, and changed his work status to reflect the
    infirmary staff gave him more self-treatment supplies two weeks
    later.
    Prison officials referred Norton to a specialist at the
    University of Texas Medical Branch ("UTMB") in February 1995.
    The physician there noted no rectal prolapse during the
    evaluation, but recommended a stool softener, a lifting
    restriction to no more than ten pounds, and a change in job
    assignment to a position with little walking or standing. The
    clinic notes from Norton's next visit to the prison clinic
    reflect the recommendations given by the UTMB physician. The
    prison physician gave Norton Metamucil, restricted Norton to
    a lower bunk and a ground-floor cell in the prison, restricted
    him to walking 100 yards, and limited him to lifting ten
    pounds and sedentary work.     However, the prison physician
    listed Norton's "bad knee" as the reason for the restrictions.
    During this time, Norton requested a new plastic donut, since
    his old one had sprung a leak. The prison provided a new
    donut the next day.
    In April 1995, the inmate clinic reported that Norton was
    doing well with his prescriptions and restrictions, although
    he was still expelling his sphincter muscles during bowel
    movements. The clinic gave Norton a new plastic donut and a
    new self-help kit. The following month, the clinic reinserted
    Norton's rectum again, gave him a new donut and some latex
    gloves, and noted that his condition could worsen with
    walking.
    This would become something of a routine for Norton;
    even with the equipment to reinsert his own rectum, on several
    occasions he could not perform the repositioning on his own
    and was forced to go to the clinic. Physicians and nurses in
    the clinic reinserted Norton's rectum in May and June, three
    times in August, and again in November and December. Norton
    requested a referral to the hospital at UTMB.      The prison
    provided him hemorrhoidal cream and directed him to record
    each episode of prolapse in order to justify a referral.
    Subsequent to all of this treatment, Norton filed the
    instant lawsuit claiming that the prison had been indifferent
    to his medical needs.
    11
    seriousness     of    his   problem.         Norton's    complaints    about   the
    treatments he has received, and the facts he alleges, simply do not
    state a claim for deliberate indifference.
    Norton also alleges that medical personnel should have
    attempted different diagnostic measures or alternative methods of
    treatment.    Disagreement with medical treatment does not state a
    claim for Eighth Amendment indifference to medical needs. Young v.
    Gray, 
    560 F.2d 201
    , 201 (5th Cir.1977);                 Spears v. McCotter, 
    766 F.2d 179
    ,     181    (5th   Cir.1985).        The   district   court   correctly
    dismissed this action as frivolous.
    C
    Next, Norton loosely asserts that the erratic procedure by
    which the district court denied him i.f.p. status and dismissed his
    appeal violates his right to due process. During its consideration
    of Norton's request to proceed i.f.p., the district court evidently
    conducted a hearing on Norton's claims in order to focus the issues
    in this case.       Although the court session was not characterized as
    a Spears hearing, it apparently served that purpose.              See Spears v.
    McCotter, 
    766 F.2d 179
    (5th Cir.1985) (establishing courtroom
    hearing as substitute for motion for more definite statement in pro
    se cases), overruled on other grounds, Neitzke v. Williams, 
    490 U.S. 319
    , 324, 
    109 S. Ct. 1827
    , 1831, 
    104 L. Ed. 2d 338
    (1989).
    In a Spears hearing, the district court may make only limited
    credibility determinations, Cay v. Estelle, 
    789 F.2d 318
    , 326-27
    (5th Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds, Denton v. Hernandez,
    
    504 U.S. 25
    , 
    112 S. Ct. 1728
    , 
    118 L. Ed. 2d 340
    (1992), and the court
    12
    must take care that the evidence considered is authentic and
    reliable.    Wilson v. Barrientos, 
    926 F.2d 480
    , 482 (5th Cir.1991).
    The court should allow proper cross-examination and should require
    that the parties properly identify and authenticate documents. 
    Id. A defendant
    may not use medical records to refute a plaintiff's
    testimony at a Spears hearing, Williams v. Luna, 
    909 F.2d 121
    , 124
    (5th Cir.1990),    but    the   court       may    require   the    defendants    in
    prisoner-rights cases to construct an administrative record to
    assist the court in determining whether the complaint is frivolous.
    
    Cay, 789 F.2d at 323
    n. 4;        Martinez v. Aaron, 
    570 F.2d 317
    , 319
    (10th Cir.1978) (establishing procedure approved in Cay ).
    In this case, the district court, in compliance with Cay,
    asked the defendants to prepare an administrative record, including
    evidence from Norton's doctors. The defendants presented the court
    with Norton's medical records and the affidavit of Dr. Owen Murray.
    Dr. Murray's affidavit was not subject to cross-examination.
    Norton    suggests    that   the       fact     that    he    was   unable   to
    cross-examine the affiant violates his right to due process.
    However, the district court did not rely on Dr. Murray's affidavit
    in dismissing Norton's complaint. Instead, the court decided that,
    based on the medical records before it, Norton's claims were
    meritless.    The district court's decision to allow Dr. Murray's
    affidavit to be considered in the Spears hearing, to the extent
    that it was erroneous, is harmless error.              Fed.R.Civ.P. 61.
    D
    Norton contends that this court erred in denying his request
    13
    for a transcript of his i.f.p./Spears hearing in the district
    court.   A court reporter was present for the hearing, but there is
    no tape of the hearing or transcript in the record.
    "Fees for transcripts furnished ... to persons permitted to
    appeal in forma pauperis shall ... be paid by the United States if
    ... a circuit judge certifies that the appeal is not frivolous (but
    presents a substantial question)."          28 U.S.C. § 753(f).       In order
    to succeed on a motion for production of transcripts at government
    expense, a party must also show why the transcripts are necessary
    for proper disposition of his appeal.         Harvey v. Andrist, 
    754 F.2d 569
    , 571 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 
    471 U.S. 1126
    , 
    105 S. Ct. 2659
    ,
    
    86 L. Ed. 2d 276
    (1985).
    Norton contends that the transcript was necessary to review
    the imposition of a partial filing fee, to determine his indigent
    status on      appeal,   and   to   substantiate     his   due   process    claim
    discussed in section C of this opinion.         Norton's indigence is not
    disputed in this appeal, and the district court determined his
    i.f.p. status based on the financial information Norton submitted
    to the court.     Furthermore, we have held that his due process claim
    and his underlying Eighth Amendment claim are frivolous.              Finally,
    Norton has not shown why the transcript is necessary to challenge
    the district court's order on appeal.          Therefore we find that he
    does not meet the requirements of section 753(f), and we affirm the
    denial of his motion for production of a transcript.
    E
    The   district    court     also   denied    Norton's     motion    for
    14
    appointment of counsel, which Norton cites as error.     We review a
    district court's decision not to appoint counsel for abuse of
    discretion. Jackson v. Dallas Police Dep't, 
    811 F.2d 260
    , 261 (5th
    Cir.1986).   A district court should appoint counsel in a civil
    rights case only if presented with exceptional circumstances.    
    Id. A district
    court should consider four factors in making this
    determination:
    (1) the type and complexity of the case;    (2) whether the
    indigent litigant is capable of adequately presenting his
    case;    (3) whether the litigant is in a position to
    investigate the case adequately; (4) whether the evidence
    will consist in large part of conflicting testimony, thus
    requiring skill in presentation and cross-examination.
    Ulmer v. Chancellor, 
    691 F.2d 209
    , 213 (5th Cir.1982).      We have
    reviewed the record in this case, and we cannot say that the
    district court abused its discretion.      It is clear from Norton's
    medical records that his civil rights claim is meritless, and, in
    the end, the presence of counsel will not change this record.
    III
    Therefore we AFFIRM the district court's dismissal of Norton's
    civil rights claim as frivolous and AFFIRM the denial of his motion
    for production of a transcript at government expense.    Furthermore
    we DENY as untimely Norton's motion to file a reply brief.       See
    Fed.R.App.P. 31(a);   5th Cir.R. 31.4.1.
    15
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 96-40912

Filed Date: 9/30/1997

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/21/2014

Authorities (23)

Highlands Insurance Company v. National Union Fire ... , 27 F.3d 1027 ( 1994 )

louella-fay-young-strickland-v-rankin-county-correctional-facility-robert , 105 F.3d 972 ( 1997 )

Vincente Gatica Startti v. United States , 415 F.2d 1115 ( 1969 )

Genus D. Ulmer v. George Chancellor, Sheriff, and Jones ... , 691 F.2d 209 ( 1982 )

Lee Hampton v. Ron Hobbs , 106 F.3d 1281 ( 1997 )

Estelle v. Gamble , 97 S. Ct. 285 ( 1976 )

Neitzke v. Williams , 109 S. Ct. 1827 ( 1989 )

Farmer v. Brennan , 114 S. Ct. 1970 ( 1994 )

valentino-b-adepegba-v-billy-g-hammons-individually-and-in-his-official , 103 F.3d 383 ( 1996 )

Donny Joel Harvey v. Jim Andrist , 754 F.2d 569 ( 1985 )

Lokmar Y. Abdul-Wadood v. Sylvester Nathan, Lokmar Y. Abdul-... , 91 F.3d 1023 ( 1996 )

Calvin Young v. Ralph Gray, Individually and as Medical ... , 560 F.2d 201 ( 1977 )

Martinez v. Aaron , 570 F.2d 317 ( 1978 )

Bounds v. Smith , 97 S. Ct. 1491 ( 1977 )

McCormick v. Stalder , 105 F.3d 1059 ( 1997 )

Kevin Michael Cay v. W.J. Estelle, Jr., Director, Texas ... , 789 F.2d 318 ( 1986 )

Denton v. Hernandez , 112 S. Ct. 1728 ( 1992 )

Paul W. Douglass v. United Services Automobile Association , 79 F.3d 1415 ( 1996 )

Van Lee Brewer, Van Lee Brewer and Claude Harris v. B. ... , 3 F.3d 816 ( 1993 )

Norman R. Spears v. O.L. McCotter Director, Texas ... , 766 F.2d 179 ( 1985 )

View All Authorities »