Shaw v. Waller, 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
January 29, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-60650
Summary Calendar
ROBERT SHAW, Warden,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DOLAN WALLER, Warden;
DOUGLAS GRIFFIN, Unit Manager;
UNKNOWN DIAL, Physician,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 5:03-CV-186-BrS
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Robert Shaw, Mississippi prisoner # 96983, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for
failure to state a claim. Shaw argues that the district court
dismissed the suit without allowing him to elaborate on his
claims and that his allegations sufficiently state valid civil
rights claims.

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 03-60650
-2-
Dismissal of a prisoner’s suit after allowing him only one
opportunity to state his case is ordinarily unjustified. Jones
v. Greninger, 188 F.3d 322 (5th Cir. 1999); Schultea v. Wood, 27
F.3d 1112, 1118 (5th Cir. 1994); Jacquez v. Procunier, 801 F.2d
789, 792 (5th Cir. 1986). Such a dismissal is appropriate only
when the plaintiff has pleaded his best case such that allowing
him to amend his complaint or elaborate on his claims would still
not produce a viable 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim. Our review of the
record reveals that the facts supporting Shaw’s claim against
Warden Waller do not state a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim and that
allowing Shaw to elaborate on this claim would be unnecessary.
See Baker v. Putnal, 75 F.3d 190, 199 (5th Cir. 1996); Williams
v. Luna, 909 F.2d 121, 123 (5th Cir. 1990). The judgment
dismissing Shaw’s claim against Warden Waller is AFFIRMED.
Our review of the complaint and Shaw’s brief indicates that
he has not pleaded his best case against Dr. Dial and Officer
Griffin, and he should be allowed to elaborate on these claims.
See Schultea, 27 F.3d at 1118; see also Estelle v. Gamble, 429
U.S. 97, 104-05 (1976). Inadequate medical treatment can, at
some point, rise to the level of a constitutional violation.
Stewart v. Murphy, 174 F.3d 530, 534 (5th Cir. 1999). A prison
officer's “intentionally interfering with the treatment once
prescribed” can constitute deliberate indifference. Estelle, 429
U.S. at 104-05.

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 03-60650
-3-
As the district court acknowledged, Shaw’s complaint is
somewhat unclear. He alleges that he was repeatedly denied
treatment while his condition worsened in prison and that Griffin
refused the request of a doctor to have Shaw’s restraints
removed. Such allegations, if developed, might state valid civil
rights claims. See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104-05; Stewart, 174
F.3d at 534. Dismissal of Shaw’s complaint without allowing him
any opportunity to elaborate on his claims and state his best
case with respect to the claims against Dr. Dial and Officer
Griffin was error. The judgment dismissing Shaw’s claims against
these defendants is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for further
proceedings. We do not comment on whether Shaw will be able to
assert facts sufficient to allege valid 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims
against these two defendants but state simply that such is
possible and that the dismissal of the complaint at this early
stage was premature.
AFFIRMED IN PART. VACATED IN PART. REMANDED FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS.

-- 3 of 3 --