IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-10006
Conference Calendar
__________________
RICHARD ENGLISH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ROBERTSON MEDICAL DEPARTMENT,
ROBERTSON UNIT, TEXAS DEPARTMENT
OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:94-CV-177
- - - - - - - - - -
(March 23, 1995)
Before GARWOOD, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Richard English, a Texas state prisoner, proceeding pro se
and in forma pauperis, filed the instant civil rights complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the Robertson Medical
Department, Robertson Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice, denied him reasonable medical care in violation of the
Eighth Amendment.
A district court may dismiss an IFP complaint as frivolous
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) if it lacks an arguable basis in law or
*
Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions
that have no precedential value and merely decide particular
cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes
needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal
profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined
that this opinion should not be published.
No. 95-10006
-2-
fact. Eason v. Thaler, 14 F.3d 8, 9 (5th Cir. 1994). If it
appears that "insufficient factual allegations might be remedied
by more specific pleading," this court considers whether the
district court abused its discretion by dismissing the complaint
without affording any effort to amend. Id.
"To state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
denial of medical treatment, a [convicted] prisoner must allege
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs." Woodall
v. Foti, 648 F.2d 268, 272 (5th Cir. Unit A June 1981) (citing
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-05 (1976)). Prison officials
violate the Eighth Amendment proscription 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, 296-97 (1991). Deliberate indifference is equivalent
to subjective recklessness in the criminal law. It is more than
negligence but less than intent to harm. Farmer v. Brennan, 114
S. Ct. 1970, 1978-79 (1994). The prison official must know of
and disregard an excessive risk to inmate health. Id. at 1979.
An inmate's disagreement with his medical treatment does not
establish a constitutional violation. See Varnado v. Lynaugh,
920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991).
English's allegations do not suggest that he had a serious
medical need. To the extent that English's allegations amount to
claims of delay in receiving medical treatment, delay that
results in substantial harm is evidence of deliberate
indifference. Mendoza v. Lynaugh, 989 F.2d 191, 195 (5th Cir.
No. 95-10006
-3-
1993). As English did not allege that his condition worsened
during the delay, an Eighth Amendment claim on this point is not
stated. Id. at 195.
AFFIRMED.