McKnight v. Janssen Biotech ( 2023 )

Case: 22-30162 Document: 00516783384 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/12/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________ United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-30162 FILED
Summary Calendar June 12, 2023
____________ Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Eugene Darryl McKnight,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Janssen Biotech; Johnson & Johnson; Randy Smith,
Sheriff; Jose Ham; Jessica Adams, FNP; Daniel Feischman,
Warden,
Defendants—Appellees.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:21-CV-1399
______________________________
Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Eugene Darryl McKnight, a Louisiana pretrial detainee housed in the
St. Tammany Parish Jail, appeals the disposition of his action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. The district court denied his motion for injunctive relief,
ordered that his § 1983 claims be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous and
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30162 Document: 00516783384 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/12/2023
No. 22-30162
for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,
and directed that his state law claims be dismissed without prejudice. On
appeal, he contests only the dismissal of his § 1983 claims. Our review is de
novo. Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373 (5th Cir. 2005).
McKnight contends that the district court improperly resolved factual
issues in disposing of his claims and did not appropriately credit his factual
assertions. His claim is unavailing. There is no indication that the district
court did not accept as true the facts pleaded by McKnight or resolved any
disputed factual issues. Instead, the record establishes that the district court
held that the facts pleaded did not establish a constitutional violation. The
district court, which did not order the defendants to file responsive pleadings
and obtained further details from McKnight concerning his claims, properly
evaluated McKnight’s claims and did so without making credibility findings.
Further, McKnight argues that the district court erred in finding that
he did not allege a plausible claim of deliberate difference. He asserts that he
was denied prompt and proper medical care for the ongoing symptoms that
he believes were caused by receiving the Johnson and Johnson (J&J) COVID-
19 vaccine, a Janssen Biotech product.
However, the medical records do not reflect that the defendants knew
that McKnight faced a substantial risk of serious harm because of his medical
issues, disregarded that risk, and meant for him to be harmed. See Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994); Banuelos v. McFarland, 41 F.3d 232, 235
(5th Cir. 1995). Their alleged failures to offer accurate diagnoses, prescribe
effective treatments, and make perfect decisions do not demonstrate their
deliberate indifference. See Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 346 (5th Cir.
2006); Domino v. Tex. Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 239 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir.
2001). While McKnight apparently disapproved of his care, and the medical
staff, at worst, was negligent, he cannot establish a claim of deliberate
2
Case: 22-30162 Document: 00516783384 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/12/2023
No. 22-30162
indifference on those bases. See Gobert, 463 F.3d at 346; Varnado v. Lynaugh,
920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991). He did not present any facts to support
that any delay in treating him resulted from unnecessary or wanton acts or
had serious medical consequences. See Easter v. Powell, 467 F.3d 459, 463
(5th Cir. 2006). His claims against Warden Fleischman and Sheriff Smith,
whom he did not allege were involved in the denial of medical care or engaged
in wrongful conduct that was casually connected to a constitutional violation,
are unavailing. See Thompkins v. Belt, 828 F.2d 298, 303 (5th Cir. 1987). He
did not allege facts to support that J&J and Janssen Biotech are liable as state
actors. See Priester v. Lowndes County, 354 F.3d 414, 423 (5th Cir. 2004).
McKnight also contends that Warden Fleischman and Sheriff Smith
did not ensure that the staff complied with the relevant policies and protocols
for protecting inmates from COVID-19. He asserts that the defendants did
not guarantee that the jail, including the quarantine areas, was sanitized and
that prisoners were protected from contracting COVID-19.
To the extent that McKnight seeks to raise a claim attacking episodic
acts or omissions based on his placement in quarantine on two instances, he
has not alleged a viable claim. See Hare v. City of Corinth, Miss., 74 F.3d 633,
644-45 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). McKnight—who does not contend that he
was harmed or infected with COVID-19 due to the purported deficiencies—
failed to assert facts supporting that any defendant consciously ignored a risk
or did not implement measures to address the risk presented by COVID-19.
See id. at 647-48. While he challenges the sufficiency of the jail’s attempts to
combat COVID-19, he has not alleged facts that show deliberate indifference.
See Valentine v. Collier, 978 F.3d 154, 163-64 (5th Cir. 2020).
Likewise, to the extent that McKnight seeks to present an attack on a
condition of confinement, his claim is unavailing. He has alleged no facts to
support that the purported conditions caused him suffering, resulted in him
3
Case: 22-30162 Document: 00516783384 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/12/2023
No. 22-30162
getting COVID-19, or otherwise brought about an adverse medical outcome
serious enough to establish a constitutional violation. See Cadena v. El Paso
Cty., 946 F.3d 717, 728 (5th Cir. 2020). Also, he has not alleged sufficient
facts to support the denial of basic human needs, to suggest that there was a
pervasive pattern of serious errors or deficiencies in the conditions of the jail,
or to indicate that jail officials adopted or failed to adopt COVID-19 protocol
policies in an effort to punish the inmates or to cause them to become ill. See
Shepherd v. Dallas Cnty., 591 F.3d 445, 452 (5th Cir. 2009).
Because this case does not present extraordinary circumstances, we
deny McKnight’s motion to appoint appellate counsel. See Cooper v. Sheriff,
Lubbock Cty., Tex., 929 F.2d 1078, 1084 (5th Cir. 1991).
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL
DENIED.
4