Winston v. Stacks

15 Citing cases

  1. Vaughn v. Massie

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-CV-21 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 7, 2018)

    To the extent that Vaughn is indeed trying to argue that he should have received more favorable work restrictions, he has failed to state a Constitutional claim. See Winston v. Stacks, 243 Fed. App'x 805, 807 (5th Cir. 2007). Vaughn, moreover, has not sued anyone who had any role in setting his work restrictions.

  2. Willcoxson v. Thaler

    CIVIL ACTION NO. H-10-2839 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 27, 2012)   Cited 1 times

    First, Willcoxson's medical condition per se did not exempt him from working. Winston v. Stacks, 243 F. App'x 805, 807 (5th Cir. 2007) (citing Mendoza v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 191, 195 (5th Cir. 1991). Even if there were an evidentiary dispute about whether Willcoxson's condition prevented him from performing the duties of counter attendant in the kitchen, to prevail on such a claim, Willcoxson must prove that the defendants were personally involved and responsible for his placement.

  3. Stevenson v. Toce

    113 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2024)   Cited 5 times
    Finding a plausible claim where, although defendants provided some treatment, the treatment was not intended to treat the plaintiff's condition

    Stevenson's allegations satisfy that standard. Contrary to the Defendants' argument, we do not find Winston v. Stacks, 243 F. App'x 805 (5th Cir. 2007) to counsel otherwise. There, a plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim based on working conditions failed because he had not alleged that his work assignment aggravated his medical condition or otherwise caused him any harm.

  4. Poe v. Fuller

    No. 20-30692 (5th Cir. Aug. 2, 2022)

    Moreover, we agree with other panels of this court that Eighth Amendment liability is not created simply because prison officials fail to adopt a prisoner's suggested medical classification. Thomas v. Carter, 593 Fed.Appx. 338, 343 (5th Cir. 2014); Winston v. Stacks, 243 Fed.Appx. 805, 807 (5th Cir. 2007).

  5. Thomas v. Carter

    593 F. App'x 338 (5th Cir. 2014)   Cited 35 times
    Rejecting deliberate indifference claim based on one-month delay in scheduling referral

    With respect to Thomas's first complaint, we have previously held that "disagreement with [one's] medical classification does not state a constitutional claim."Winston v. Stacks, 243 F. App'x. 805, 807 (5th Cir. 2007) (unpublished). Thomas's duty status was frequently reevaluated to ensure it was consistent with his physical limitations.

  6. Phillips v. Lumpkin

    2:23-CV-00185-Z-BR (N.D. Tex. Nov. 20, 2024)

    Phillips' claims against Carrizales and Ellis amount solely to dissatisfaction with the medical treatment he received, rather than their outright refusal to provide treatment. See Winston v. Stacks, 243 Fed.Appx. 805, 807 (5th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (“[Prisoner's] dissatisfaction with the treatment he received is insufficient to state a constitutional claim.”);

  7. Timms v. Douthit

    Civil Action 5:20-CV-067-M-BQ (N.D. Tex. Aug. 30, 2023)

    Questionnaire 2, 6. These allegations amount to disagreement with Dr. Douthit's medical judgment and the treatment he provided, rather than a refusal by Dr. Douthit to provide treatment. See Winstonv. Stacks, 243 Fed.Appx. 805, 807 (5th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (“[Prisoner's] dissatisfaction with the treatment he received is insufficient to state a constitutional claim.”); McQueenv. Karr, No. 02-10553, 2002 WL 31688891, at *1 (5th Cir. Oct. 29, 2002) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal of prisoner's claim based on “dissatisfaction with the treatment offered him”); Garrett v. Sulser, No. 6:17cv310, 2019 WL 8500862, at *7 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 4, 2019) (concluding that complaints alleging medical personnel “merely performed a ‘cursory' examination” were nothing more than “disagreement and/or dissatisfaction with the medical treatment he received”), R. & R. adopted by 2020 WL 562804 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 5, 2020)

  8. Jackson v. Bickham

    Civil Action 22-1037-SDD-EWD (M.D. La. Apr. 18, 2023)

    R. Doc. 1, p. 19. Winston v. Stacks, 243 Fed.Appx. 805, 807 (5th Cir. 2007) (“dissatisfaction with the treatment he received is insufficient to state a constitutional claim.”)

  9. Young v. Polk

    Civil Action 5:20cv87 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 3, 2023)

    This comports with established Fifth Circuit authority requiring a showing of some harm for a claim of deliberate indifference. See, e.g., Winston v. Stacks, 243 Fed.Appx. 805, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 13987, at *2 (5th Cir., June 14, 2007) (stating that the plaintiff did not allege and the records did not show that his medical condition was aggravated or that he suffered any injury or harm as a result of his work assignment, and so his claim of deliberate indifference was dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted). Because Plaintiff did not allege facts showing deliberate indifference on Lt. Wilson's part and did not allege facts showing that he suffered any type of harm or injury, he has failed to overcome Lt. Wilson's qualified immunity.

  10. Poe v. Fuller

    CIVIL ACTION NO.: 17-913 (W.D. La. Mar. 28, 2019)

    While neither EHCC nor LSP required Poe to work, "[d]isagreement with [one's] medical classification does not state a constitutional claim." Thomas, 593 F. App'x at 343 (quoting Winston v. Stacks, 243 F. App'x 805, 807 (5th Cir. 2007) (per curiam)). Moreover, medical staff at DWCC reevaluated his classification multiple times and made modifications to further limit his activity.