Flores v. Masters, et al

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-21031
Conference Calendar
JUAN VALENZUELA FLORES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
LUTHER A. MASTERS; DR. MASTER; DR. VICTOR
ZIMA; CAPTAIN JAMES; CHARLES K; SERGEANT WILLIAMS;
DONALD G,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-98-CV-1973
--------------------
April 12, 2001
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Juan Valenzuela Flores, Texas prisoner # 608260, appeals the
dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted. The appellant argues
that his back problem was aggravated because he was required to
work more than four hours per day and that the defendants did not
grant his request for a four-hour work day restriction until
after he threatened to file suit against them. He does not
dispute that his current work restrictions include: a four-hour

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 00-21031
-2-
work day; no lifting over 25 pounds; no squatting; no walking on
wet, uneven surfaces; no working around machines with moving
parts; no exposure to loud noises; and no work requiring complex
instructions. Even if the appellant’s allegations are taken as
true, he has not alleged a constitutional violation as he does
not allege that prison officials knowingly forced him to perform
work assignments which were inconsistent with his work
restrictions or that they knowingly imposed work restrictions
that were beyond his physical capabilities. See Jackson v. Cain,
864 F.2d 1235, 1246 (5th Cir. 1989); Mendoza v. Lynaugh, 989 F.2d
191, 194 (5th Cir. 1993). Even if the defendants were negligent
in establishing his work restrictions or making his job
assignment, such negligence is not unconstitutional. See
Jackson, 864 F.2d at 1246. Therefore, the district court did not
err in dismissing his action for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted. The appellant’s conclusional
allegations that he was treated differently from nondisabled
prisoners do not state an equal protection claim as he has not
alleged any specific facts to show when or how he was treated
differently from other nondisabled prisoners. See Mayabb v.
Johnson, 168 F.3d 863, 870 (5th Cir.)(a violation of equal
protection occurs only when the governmental action in question
classifies or distinguishes between two or more relevant persons
or groups, or when a classification impermissibly interferes with
a fundamental right), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 969 (1999).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --