IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-40609
Summary Calendar
JAMES B. BECKNELL, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
LIEUTENANT WOOD; W.J. ESTELLE; COLONEL MOORE; ROBERT DELONG;
WARDEN E.H. TURNER; ALL DEFENDANTS,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:78-CV-285
- - - - - - - - - -
June 30, 1999
Before DAVIS, DUHÉ, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
James B. Becknell, Jr., Texas prisoner # 274915, appeals the
district court’s denial of his motion to compel the defendants to
comply with the district court’s injunction issued on December 28,
1981. Becknell argues that the defendants required him to perform
job tasks which were inconsistent with his medical restrictions in
violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. Becknell’s current job
assignment to the chow hall which requires him to wipe off the
tables is consistent with his medical restrictions. See Jackson v.
1
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
King, 864 F.2d 1235, 1246 (5th Cir. 1989). Any orders directing
Becknell to perform the additional tasks of wiping off the walls or
serving line were made by officers who were unaware of Becknell’s
medical restrictions and at most amount to mere negligence. See
id. The district court did not err in rescinding its prior
injunction based on significant changes in the law which now
protect Becknell’s Eighth Amendment rights. See United States v.
Lawrence County School District, 799 F.2d 1031, 1046 (5th Cir.
1986); Jackson, 864 F.2d at 1246.
Becknell argues for the first time on appeal that: (1) he was
assigned to work in a textile mill performing duties inconsistent
with his medical restrictions from 1980 to 1988; (2) he was
assigned to numerous other jobs inconsistent with his medical
restrictions; (3) the transportation provided by the prison caused
him pain and suffering; (4) the defendants have a policy of
involuntary servitude; (5) the defendants changed or lied about the
result of an x-ray of his shoulder; and (6) he requests injunctive
relief concerning numerous job requirements and living conditions.
Because these claims involve factual issues which were not
presented to the district court, we will not consider these claims.
See United States v. Rocha, 109 F.3d 225, 229 (5th Cir. 1997);
Robertson v. Plano City of Texas, 70 F.3d 21, 23 (5th Cir. 1995).
Becknell’s motion for mandatory disqualification and recusal
of the district court judge is DENIED. Because the additional
documents Becknell seeks to include in the appellate record are not
necessary for the resolution of his appeal, Becknell’s motion to
supplement the appellate record is also DENIED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION FOR RECUSAL DENIED; MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT
RECORD DENIED.