United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 26, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-41099
Summary Calendar
RICHARD OWEN TAYLOR,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
LESLIE WOODS; KEVIN E. MOORE; MICHAEL W. SIZEMORE; ETHAN
A. WESTFALL; DEVERY MOONEYHAM; ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:04-CV-380
--------------------
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Richard Owen Taylor, Texas prisoner # 816002, filed a
42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging that he was (1) subjected to
unconstitutionally cold, wet, and, alternately, hot living
conditions; (2) exposed to extreme water temperatures in the
prison showers; (3) exposed to unsanitary conditions in his cell
and in the showers; and (4) deprived of medically necessary
snacks. The district court dismissed those claims as frivolous.
Taylor also alleged that he was unconstitutionally deprived of
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-41099
-2-
his personal photographs. The district court dismissed this
claim because Taylor had an adequate state postdeprivation
remedy.
To demonstrate an Eighth Amendment violation, a prisoner
must show that he was deprived of the minimal civilized measure
of life’s necessities or some basic human need. Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). He must also show that prison
officials knew of and disregarded “an excessive risk to inmate
health or safety.” Id. at 837. “Prisoners have a right to
protection from extreme cold.” Palmer v. Johnson, 193 F.3d 346,
353 (5th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted).
Taylor has failed to show that the district court abused its
discretion in dismissing his claim of excessive heat exposure as
frivolous. See Berry v. Brady, 192 F.3d 504, 507 (5th Cir.
1999); Woods v. Edwards, 51 F.3d 577, 581 (5th Cir. 1995). Nor
has Taylor shown an abuse of discretion with respect to the
dismissal of his claim regarding the water temperatures in the
shower. He acknowledged at a Spears** hearing that prison
officials were working to resolve that problem. We do not
consider Taylor’s argument, raised for the first time in this
court, that he was forced to move into a cell that had human
feces on the door and toilet. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder
Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999). The district court’s
**
Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985).
No. 05-41099
-3-
dismissal of Taylor’s claim regarding the deprivation of his
medically necessary snacks was not an abuse of discretion;
Taylor’s allegations in the district court indicated that prison
officials tried to get the snacks to Taylor. See Berry, 192 F.3d
at 507. Finally, the district court did not err in dismissing
Taylor’s claim relating to the loss of his photographs on the
basis that Taylor has an adequate state postdeprivation remedy.
See Thompson v. Steele, 709 F.2d 381, 383 (5th Cir. 1983).
We turn now to Taylor’s remaining allegations. Taking
Taylor’s allegations as true, he was arguably subjected to
extreme cold without adequate protection and prison officials
were indifferent to his health and safety in this regard.
See Beck v. Lynaugh, 842 F.2d 759, 760-61 (5th Cir. 1988). The
district court thus erred in dismissing this claim as frivolous.
See Berry, 192 F.3d at 507. The district court’s dismissal of
Taylor’s claim regarding exposure to extreme cold and wet
conditions is vacated. This case is remanded for further
proceedings on that issue. The district court should also
address Taylor’s claim regarding unsanitary shower conditions due
to poor drainage. The judgment of the district court is, in all
other respects, affirmed.
AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART.