Taylor v. Collier ( 2023 )

Case: 22-20398 Document: 00516979406 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/27/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________ United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-20398 FILED
November 27, 2023
____________
Lyle W. Cayce
Kenneth Taylor, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Bryan Collier; Kim Massey; Marcia Jackson; Kenneth
Putnum; Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
Defendants—Appellees.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:21-CV-2161
______________________________
Before Jolly, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Kenneth Taylor, a Texas prisoner, appeals the district court’s
summary judgment dismissal of his Americans with Disabilities Act
(“ADA”), Rehabilitation Act (“RA”), and constitutional claims. We
AFFIRM.
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-20398 Document: 00516979406 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/27/2023
No. 22-20398
I.
Taylor is an inmate in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice
system who is classified as a “heat sensitive offender,” meaning that he is
especially susceptible to extreme temperatures. Because air-conditioned
housing addresses Taylor’s particular risk of injury during heat spells, Taylor
complained when the TDCJ housed him in an unconditioned facility.
Consequently, Taylor filed this federal complaint seeking (1) monetary
damages under the ADA, the RA, and the Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments; and (2) reassignment to an air-conditioned cell to address his
condition. In response, prison officials moved Taylor to an air-conditioned
facility elsewhere. Taylor, dissatisfied with these new accommodations for
other reasons, requested another transfer. Defendants then returned Taylor
to his original unairconditioned facility but agreed to provide air conditioning
in the facility to him during the summer months. The record demonstrates
that prison officials have kept that commitment.
Nevertheless, his complaint proceeded through the court system. On
summary judgment, the district court dismissed Taylor’s case. Now on
appeal, Taylor argues that the district court erred (1) in dismissing his ADA
and RA claims, (2) finding that Taylor had abandoned his constitutional
claims, and (3) finding that Taylor’s request for air-conditioned housing as
moot.
II.
The district court “shall grant summary judgment if the movant
shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). This
court reviews the grant of summary judgment de novo and applies the same
standard as the district court. Nickell v. Beau View of Biloxi, L.L.C., 636 F.3d
752, 754 (5th Cir. 2011) (quotation omitted).
2
Case: 22-20398 Document: 00516979406 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/27/2023
No. 22-20398
III.
Taylor contends that the district court erred in finding his claim for
injunctive relief for a transfer to an air-conditioned dorm to be moot after he
was in fact transferred to air-conditioned accommodations for the summer
months. Appellant’s Br. 39-42. This court reviews legal questions relating
to mootness de novo. Ctr. for Biological Diversity, Inc. v. BP Am. Prod. Co.,
704 F.3d 413, 421 (5th Cir. 2013). A claim for injunctive relief becomes moot
when the petitioner receives the relief he requested. DeMoss v. Crain, 636
F.3d 145, 151 (5th Cir. 2011). According to the record, Taylor will be housed
in an air-conditioned cell during the summer months each year. ROA.334-
35, 342. This solution will provide Taylor with air-conditioned living
quarters during the summer heat, when he is vulnerable to the extreme
temperatures that trigger his heat sensitivity, which forms the basis for the
requested injunctive relief. Consequently, Taylor’s request for injunctive
relief is moot and the district court dismissal of that claim is AFFIRMED.
IV.
Taylor further argues that the district court erred in dismissing his
Eighth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment claims. Appellant’s Br. 29-
33. The district court held that Taylor dropped these claims by failing to brief
them at the summary judgment stage. ROA.418-19. In Taylor’s response to
the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, he acknowledged that “[t]he
claims the plaintiff brings are ADA and RA claims . . .. The whole basis of
this suit was and is Intentional Discrimination of a Disabled Person under
ADA, ADAAA and RA.” ROA.388-89.
Issues raised in the complaint but ignored by the plaintiff in summary
judgment proceedings to dismiss the complaint are waived and will not be
considered on appeal. Keenan v. Tejeda, 290 F.3d 252, 262 (5th Cir. 2002)
(citations omitted). Although we liberally construe the filings of pro se
3
Case: 22-20398 Document: 00516979406 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/27/2023
No. 22-20398
litigants, such unrepresented parties must still brief issues to preserve them.
Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995). See also Yohey v. Collins,
985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir.1993) (“‘[A]rguments must be briefed to be
preserved.’” (quoting Price v. Digital Equip. Corp., 846 F.2d 1026, 1028 (5th
Cir.1988)). Because Taylor has failed to brief his constitutional claims at the
summary judgment level, the district court dismissal is AFFIRMED.
V.
We turn to Taylor’s primary argument on appeal: the district court
erred by dismissing his ADA and RA claims for damages. Appellant’s Br.
20-29. The relevant statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e), provides that “[n]o
Federal civil action may be brought by a prisoner confined in a jail, prison, or
other correctional facility, for mental or emotional injury suffered while in
custody without a prior showing of physical injury....” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e).
We have characterized § 1997e(e) as preventing “prisoners from seeking
compensatory damages for violations of federal law where no physical injury
is alleged.” Mayfield v. Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Just., 529 F.3d 599, 605 (5th Cir.
2008) (citing Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 375 (5th Cir. 2005)). We have
repeatedly applied this principle to ADA and RA claims. See, e.g., Flowers v.
Sutterfield, No. 20-10988, 2022 WL 2821953, at *2 (5th Cir. July 20, 2022),
cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 1057 (2023); Buchanan v. Harris, No. 20-20408, 2021
WL 4514694, at *2 (5th Cir. Oct. 1, 2021); Flaming v. Alvin Cmty. Coll., 777
F. App’x 771, 772 (5th Cir. 2019).
Here, Taylor’s claim for damages does not assert a physical injury.
Instead, he alleged only that his placement in unairconditioned housing could
subject him to extreme heat, which could aggravate his medical conditions
and could result in physical harm, and that such risk had caused him pain and
suffering, which in turn entitled him to damages. Appellant’s Br. 9, 36-39.
Because he claims only concern about the risk of possible harm, and not any
4
Case: 22-20398 Document: 00516979406 Page: 5 Date Filed: 11/27/2023
No. 22-20398
actual resulting physical injury, his claim for damages fails to overcome the
hurdle of § 1997e(e). Thus, Taylor’s ADA and RA claims fail, and the
dismissal of these claims is AFFIRMED.
VI.
In sum, Taylor’s claim for injunctive relief is moot, as he was
transferred to air-conditioned housing; Taylor abandoned his constitutional
claims by failing to brief them on summary judgment; and Taylor’s claims
under the ADA and RA were properly dismissed because he has failed to
allege a physical injury. Accordingly, the district court’s dismissal of Taylor’s
complaint is
AFFIRMED.
5