United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT November 24, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-60729
Summary Calendar
DESMOND EARL PHILLIPS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
F.D. EAST, Etc; ET AL.,
Defendants,
BUDDY ROY, Jail Administrator;
GERALD CLEMONS, Deputy Jailer; ROY WHITE,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:99-CV-171-D
--------------------
Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA and DENNIS, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM:*
Desmond Earl Phillips, Mississippi inmate # 35002,
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”), appeals the
district court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law pursuant to
FED. R. CIV. P. 50 in favor of the defendants, setting aside the
jury’s verdict on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims. Phillips was
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 02-60729
-2-
confined in administrative segregation in the Lafayette County
Detention Center from the evening of November 9, 1999, until the
morning of November 12, 1999, after he was found to be in
possession of contraband. Phillips was suffering from an upper
respiratory tract infection. He was clothed in the prison-issued
pants, short-sleeved shirt, pullover jail top, and shower shoes.
Phillips produced evidence that he was denied a mattress, a
blanket, and toilet paper.
The defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law at the
close of the evidence. The district court denied the motion.
The jury rendered a verdict awarding Phillips $500 in
compensatory damages and $1,500 in punitive damages against each
of the three appellants.
The defendants filed a timely post-verdict motion for
judgment as a matter of law pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 50 (b).
The district court granted the motion, explaining that Phillips
did not prove that the conditions of confinement resulted in a
serious deprivation of his basic human needs.
Phillips contends without merit that the district court had
no evidentiary basis upon which to grant judgment as a matter of
law because the defendants did not present additional evidence
after the district court denied the initial motion. See e.g. PPM
America, Inc. v. Marriot Corp., 874 F. Supp. 289 (D.C. Md. 1995).
Phillips also asserts that the district court lacked
jurisdiction to enter a superseding order that granted the
No. 02-60729
-3-
defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law. The district
court retained jurisdiction to “take action in aid of the
appeal.” Winchester v. U.S. Attorney, 68 F.3d 947, 949 (5th Cir.
1995). Thus, the superseding order was proper.
In addition, Phillips contends that the jury was instructed
in accordance with the law, and the evidence supported the
verdict. He argues that the district court erred by setting
aside the jury’s verdict.
We review de novo the grant of a judgment as a matter of
law. Hidden Oaks Ltd. v. City of Austin, 138 F.3d 1036, 1042
(5th Cir. 1998). We consider evidentiary matters drawing “all
reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-
moving party.” Hidden Oaks Ltd., 138 F.3d at 1042.
Judgment as a matter of law is granted properly when “`a party
has been fully heard on an issue and there is no legally
sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for
that party on that issue.’” Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prod.,
530 U.S. 133, 149 (2000).
“The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and
unusual punishment requires prison officials to provide ‘humane
conditions of confinement,’ ensuring that ‘inmates receive
adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care.’” Palmer v.
Johnson, 193 F.3d 346, 351-52 (5th Cir. 1999). To establish an
Eighth Amendment violation, a prisoner must demonstrate that the
deprivation was “objectively, sufficiently serious”; that is,
No. 02-60729
-4-
“the prison official’s act or omission must result in the denial
of the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.” Id. at
352 (internal quotations and citations omitted). In addition,
the prison official must have acted with “deliberate indifference
to inmate health or safety.” Id. (internal quotations and
citations omitted).
The denial for two and one-half days of a mattress, a
blanket, and toilet paper, without more, to an inmate with a cold
confined indoors does not constitute a deprivation of the minimal
civilized measures of life's necessities. Cf. Palmer, 193 F.3d
at 352; Novak v. Beto, 453 F.2d 661, 665-66 (5th Cir. 1971).
Although the conditions of Phillips’ confinement were
uncomfortable and even harsh, the conditions did not violate the
Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual
punishment. Palmer, 193 F.3d at 351-52. The denial of a blanket
and a mattress was pursuant to a prison regulation denying
bedding to inmates in isolation in order to prevent the higher
risk of inmate suicide, a legitimate penological interest. Even
prison regulations that infringe a prisoners constitutional
rights are upheld if they are reasonably related to a legitimate
penological interest. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89, 107 S.
Ct. 2254, 2261 (1987); Talib v. Gilley, 138 F.3d 211 (5th Cir.
1998). Accordingly, the district court’s order granting judgment
as a matter of law is AFFIRMED.