IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-30546
Summary Calendar
ROBERT JACKSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
BYRD, Warden; CORRECTIONAL
CORPORATION OF AMERICA,
of Tennessee; DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS; HUBERT, Warden;
LUCAS, Chief, HASSLE, Captain;
J. BROWN; MACKEY; C. SWEARINGEN;
MYLES, Lieutenant,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 01-CV-238
September 4, 2001
Before GARWOOD, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Robert Jackson, Louisiana inmate #295276, appeals the district
court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous.
Jackson argues that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated when
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.
he was denied the prescription drug “Batroban” and when prison
nurses refused to change his dressings. He further argues that he
suffered violations of his Eighth Amendment and substantive due
process rights when he was ordered to remain naked in a cold cell
for fourteen hours.
Prison officials violate the constitutional prohibition
against cruel and unusual punishment when they demonstrate
deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical needs,
constituting an unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain. Wilson
v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 297 (1991).
The documents submitted with the complaint refute Jackson’s
allegations of deliberate indifference. Jackson was not only
treated on a continuous basis for his medical condition, but he
received medication for it as well. The fact that it was not the
medication Jackson would have liked to have received does not give
him a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Norton v.
Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286, 292 (5th Cir. 1997). Jackson’s allegation
that the prison nurses failed to change his dressings is also
unsupported by the record. The district court did not err in
dismissing Jackson’s Eighth Amendment medical treatment claim as
frivolous, and we affirm that part of its judgment.
If Jackson’s pleadings are given a liberal construction, see
United States v. Riascos, 76 F.3d 93, 94 (5th Cir. 1996), he has
also raised an Eighth Amendment claim insofar as he has alleged
2
that several of the defendants ordered him to remain naked in a
cold cell for fourteen hours in retaliation for filing a false
complaint of sexual harassment against one of the female correction
officers. This is not a facially frivolous claim. See Gregg v.
Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 173 (1976); Berry v. Brady, 192 F.3d 504,
507 (5th Cir. 1999) (punishment rises to the level of “cruel and
unusual” if it involves the wanton and unnecessary infliction of
pain). The magistrate judge did not address this allegation in his
report, and the district court did not rule on its merits. We
therefore reverse in part and remand for the district court to
address the merits of the retaliation claim. See Eason v. Thaler,
14 F.3d 8, 9 & n.5 (5th Cir. 1994) (unless pro se prisoner’s
complaint is fantastic or delusional, he should be allowed to make
more specific allegations of his constitutional claim).
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED
3