Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-09-10319/USCOURTS-ca5-09-10319-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

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. 09-10319

Summary Calendar

DAVID RUSSELL HALE,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

JOHN RASBERRY, Physician’s Assistant; SUNDAY WILSON, Nurse

Practitioner; RICHARD MENDEZ, Correctional Officer; ROGER CASTILLO,

Sergeant; JIMMY STAGGS, JR., Sergeant; DR. JOHN DOES; JANE DOES; MR.

JOHN DOES, 

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:08-CV-135

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

David Russell Hale, Texas prisoner # 1100883, proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis (IFP), appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(b), and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c). In his complaint, as well as on appeal, he

argues that: (1) there was a long delay before he began receiving medical

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 13, 2010

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

 Case: 09-10319 Document: 00511003724 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/13/2010
No. 09-10319

2

treatment for the Hepatitis C virus (HCV); (2) once he began receiving HCV

treatment, he was given an incorrect dosage, which caused side effects; and

(3) the HCV treatment was stopped, and he received disciplinary convictions in

retaliation for his filing of administrative grievances. We review the instant

dismissal utilizing the de novo standard. See Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373

(5th Cir. 2005).

Hale’s claims regarding his medical care for HCV are based upon

assertions of unsuccessful treatment or dissatisfaction with the medical care he

received. As such, he has failed to raise a constitutional issue regarding his

medical care. See Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991).

Moreover, to the extent that Hale has raised factual allegations regarding an

infected tooth for the first time on appeal, those allegations are not cognizable.

See id. Because Hale does not show that the defendants exhibited deliberate

indifference regarding the problem with his tooth, he would not be entitled to

relief even if these allegations were cognizable. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S.

97, 105-06 (1976).

Hale has also failed to make the requisite showing in conjunction with his

retaliation claims. See Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 1166 (5th Cir. 1995).

Accordingly, his claims were properly dismissed as frivolous. See Geiger, 404

F.3d at 373. The district court’s dismissal of Hale’s complaint counts as a strike

for purposes of § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th

Cir. 1996). Hale is warned that if he accumulates three strikes, he will not be

allowed to bring a civil action or appeal a judgment IFP unless he is under

imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 09-10319 Document: 00511003724 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/13/2010