Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-51013/USCOURTS-ca5-03-51013-0/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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

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. 03-51013

Summary Calendar

 

JAMES GREGORY LYNN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JANIE COCKRELL, in her official capacity;

TERRY R. HASSEL, Head Warden; JIMMY R. LAWSON,

Major; BENNY H. BOYKIN, Captain; JOE R. ALDERMAN,

Substitute Counselor,

Defendants-Appellees.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. W-03-CV-207

--------------------

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

James Gregory Lynn, Texas prisoner #636695, moves for leave

to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) to appeal the district court’s

dismissal of his civil rights complaint, filed pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983, as frivolous and for failure to state a claim

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii). Lynn’s motion

is a challenge to the district court’s certification that his

 Case: 03-51013 Document: 0051110731 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/29/2004
No. 03-51013

-2-

appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d

197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). As an initial matter, Lynn has

abandoned his claim against Cockrell by failing to brief it

adequately. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.

1993) (arguments not briefed on appeal are deemed abandoned). 

Lynn avers that Hassel, Lawson, Boykin, and Alderman filed

and prosecuted false disciplinary cases against him in

retaliation for his having filed a prior lawsuit against them. 

Because an inmate is not required to demonstrate a favorable

outcome of a disciplinary case if he is alleging a retaliatory

motive, the district court abused its discretion in determining

that the retaliation claims against Hassel, Lawson, Boykin, and

Alderman were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). 

See Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 1164-66 (5th Cir. 1995). Thus,

the district court erred in certifying that Lynn was not entitled

to proceed IFP on appeal. Therefore, Lynn’s motion to proceed

IFP on appeal is GRANTED. 

However, the dismissal of the retaliation claims against

Hassel, Lawson, Boykin, and Alderman is AFFIRMED on the basis

that Lynn failed to allege facts to support an arguable claim of

retaliation. See Hanchey v. Energas Co., 925 F.2d 96, 97 (5th

Cir. 1990); Woods, 60 F.3d at 1164-66. 

IFP GRANTED; AFFIRMED.

 Case: 03-51013 Document: 0051110731 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/29/2004