Estrada v. Director, TDCJ-CID ( 2023 )

Case: 22-11202 Document: 00516795410 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/21/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-11202
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ June 21, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
Patricio Estrada, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Correctional Institutions
Division, Individually and in Official Capacities; Mr. Castillo, Warden
of the Daniels Unit, Individually and in Official Capacities; Ms.
Carpenter, Daniels Unit Psychologist, Individually and in Official
Capacities; Ms. Cogburn, Daniels Unit Medical Coordinator, Individually
and in Official Capacities; Mr. Thompson, Daniels Unit Sergeant,
Individually and in Official Capacities; Mr. Perez, Daniels Unit Sergeant,
Individually and in Official Capacities; Mr. Tapscott, Daniels Unit
Sergeant, Individually and in Official Capacities; Ms. Calloway, Daniels
Unit Sergeant, Individually and in Official Capacities,
Defendants—Appellees.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:20-CV-30
______________________________
Before Smith, Southwick, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Case: 22-11202 Document: 00516795410 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/21/2023
No. 22-11202
Per Curiam: *
Patricio Estrada, Texas inmate # 2089041, sued various employees of
the Texas Department of Criminal Justice under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging
that the defendants violated his rights under the First, Fourth, Eighth, and
Fourteenth Amendments as well as the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) and Rehabilitation Act (RA), either directly or in a supervisory
capacity, by denying him medical care and reasonable accommodations in
light of his physical disabilities, failing to protect him, exposing him to cold
and unsanitary conditions, retaliating against him, and placing him in
disciplinary segregation. The district court permitted Estrada’s ADA and
RA claims and his Eighth Amendment claims of failure to provide housing
accommodations to proceed but dismissed the rest of his claims for failure to
state a claim and entered final judgment thereon. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). The court also denied
Estrada’s request to add the Texas Tech Medical Department as a
defendant. Estrada now appeals the adverse rulings.
Estrada fails to show error under the applicable de novo standard of
review. See Black v. Warren, 134 F.3d 732, 734 (5th Cir. 1998). As explained
in detail by the district court and magistrate judge, Estrada’s various district
court pleadings contain insufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state
a plausible claim for relief on any appealed ground or to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendants are liable, either directly or as a supervisor, for
any alleged misconduct. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
Estrada further fails to show that the district court abused its discretion by
denying his request to add Texas Tech as a defendant. See Lockett v. Gen.
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
2
Case: 22-11202 Document: 00516795410 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/21/2023
No. 22-11202
Fin. Loan Co. of Downtown, 623 F.2d 1128, 1132 (5th Cir. 1980). Accordingly,
the judgment is AFFIRMED.
3