Kevin Muth v. Pam Hearn, et al, No. 16-31073 (5th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 16-31073 Document: 00514220180 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/01/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-31073 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED November 1, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk KEVIN J. MUTH, Plaintiff-Appellant v. PAM HEARN; TAMMY POOLE; JOEL WILLIAMS; MICHELLE NORRIS; JAMES LEBLANC; JERRY GOODWIN, Defendants-Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 5:16-CV-893 Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Kevin J. Muth, Louisiana prisoner # 631935, appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A. He also moves for document production. In his complaint, Muth alleged that the defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Specifically, he asserted that prison officials ignored medical issues, stemming 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. * Case: 16-31073 Document: 00514220180 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/01/2017 No. 16-31073 from his diagnosed carpal tunnel syndrome and other medical conditions. He re-urges those challenges on appeal. Muth’s arguments are unavailing. Even if the assertions in his complaint are true, his contentions effectively amount to a disagreement with the treatment and care provided and do not amount to a constitutional violation. Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991); see Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 346, 349 n.32 (5th Cir. 2006); Mendoza v. Lynaugh, 989 F.2d 191, 194-95 (5th Cir. 1993). To the extent that Muth is arguing, with the benefit of liberal construction, that prison officials sent him to administrative segregation in retaliation for his medical requests, his conclusional allegations do not show any retaliatory motive from prison officials or but-for causation. See Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 1166 (5th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, the dismissal of Muth’s § 1983 action is AFFIRMED. His motion for document production is DENIED AS MOOT. Our affirmance and the district court’s dismissal count as a single strike under § 1915(g). See § 1915(g); Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Muth is WARNED that if he accumulates three strikes, he will not be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g). 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
