Michael Baker v. Bruce Armstrong, et al

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18- 50334
Summary Calendar

MICHAEL ALLEN BAKER,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

BRUCE ARMSTRONG; TDCJ-CID; RICK THALER; UNIVERSITY OF
TEXAS MEDICAL BRANCH; DR. DOUGLAS E. GREENE, M.D.; OFFICE OF
ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 6:16-CV-303

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
*

Michael Allen Baker, Texas prisoner # 1654093, filed a civil action
stemming from the failure of the defendants to accommodate his special
dietary needs, which were the result of a pre-incarceration gastric bypass
surgery. His claims focused on the denial of a slow-eating pass during his

*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5
TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
May 13, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 18-50334 Document: 00515415149 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/13/2020

No. 18-50334
2

incarceration in the Alfred D. Hughes Unit.
1
In his appeal, Baker challenges
the summary judgment dismissal of the claims brought pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act (RA), and 42
U.S.C. § 1983 as well as the district court’s denial of his motion for the
appointment of counsel. As the district court granted Baker’s motion to
dismiss Bruce Armstrong and Rick Thaler, the instant appeal involves only the
remaining defendants.
We review a summary judgment de novo, “view[ing] the evidence in the
light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw[ing] all reasonable
inferences in that party’s favor.” Cadena v. El Paso Cty., 946 F.3d 717, 723
(5th Cir. 2020). To establish a prima facie case under either the ADA or the
RA, the plaintiff must show the following: (1) he is a qualified individual with
a disability; “(2) [ ] he is being excluded from participation in, or being denied
benefits of, services, programs, or activities for which the public entity is
responsible, or is otherwise being discriminated against by the public entity;
and (3) [ ] such exclusion, denial of benefits, or discrimination is by reason of
his disability.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
The summary judgment evidence shows that, even if there were factual
disputes, Baker did not show a genuine dispute as to any material facts. See
Austin v. Kroger Tex., L.P., 864 F.3d 326, 328 (5th Cir. 2017). Baker was
provided with medications and various diets, some of which he refused. He
received numerous medical screenings, was referred to a specialist for his
gastrointestinal issues, and gained weight during the applicable time period in
the Hughes Unit. Given that Baker was entitled to reasonable
accommodations and not his preferred accommodations, see Griffin v. United

1
Baker’s similar claims pertaining to his incarceration in the Price Daniel Unit were
the subject of an appeal in Baker v. TDCJ-CID, 793 F. App’x 220 (5th Cir. 2019).

Case: 18-50334 Document: 00515415149 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/13/2020

No. 18-50334
3

Parcel Serv., Inc., 661 F.3d 216, 224 (5th Cir. 2011), there is no genuine dispute
as to any material fact because no reasonable jury could find that the
defendants failed to reasonably accommodate Baker’s eating disability, see
Austin, 864 F.3d at 328. Accordingly, summary judgment dismissal was
proper. Because we conclude that Baker has failed to raise a genuine dispute
of any material fact with respect to his ADA claim, it is unavailing for Baker
to assert that the district court improperly found that the State had not
abrogated its sovereign immunity. See Block v. Texas Bd. of Law Exam’rs, 952
F.3d 613, 617 (5th Cir. 2020).
Regarding Baker’s deliberate indifference claims, the district court’s
summary judgment dismissal was proper because the undisputed facts
demonstrate that Dr. Greene provided ongoing care, did not refuse to treat
Baker, did not ignore his complaints, did not intentionally treat him
incorrectly, and did not otherwise disregard Baker’s serious medical needs. See
Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 346 (5th Cir. 2006). Baker’s disagreement
with his treatment regimen and any unsuccessful treatment are insufficient to
establish deliberate indifference. See id.
Next, Baker challenges the denial of appointed counsel in the district
court. Because Baker has not demonstrated exceptional circumstances
warranting the appointment of counsel, we find no abuse of discretion. See
Baranowski v. Hart, 486 F.3d 112, 126 (5th Cir. 2007); Cupit v. Jones, 835 F.2d
82, 86 (5th Cir. 1987).
Finally, we note that Baker asserts that the district court held him to a
heightened pleading standard by failing to liberally construe his pleadings.
The record belies his assertion. In any event, Baker points to no specific
allegations that the district court failed to liberally construe.
AFFIRMED.
Case: 18-50334 Document: 00515415149 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/13/2020