Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-10455/USCOURTS-ca5-15-10455-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Polanco Blanco
Appellee
Chris Orourkm
Appellee
Jose Suria
Appellant
Richard Wathen
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-10455

JOSE SURIA,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

RICHARD WATHEN, Warden, James V. Allred Unit; POLANCO BLANCO, 

Correctional Officer II, James V. Allred Unit; CHRIS OROURKM, Correctional 

Officer IV, James V. Allred Unit,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:15-CV-77

Before CLEMENT, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Suria, Texas prisoner # 1297062, moves for leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis (IFP) to appeal the dismissal as frivolous of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

lawsuit. By moving to proceed IFP, Suria is challenging the district court’s 

certification that the appeal is not taken in good faith. Baugh v. Taylor, 117 

F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). This court’s inquiry “is limited to whether the 

appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not 

 

* 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

FILED

September 23, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-10455 Document: 00513204898 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/23/2015
No. 15-10455

2

frivolous).” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). In addition, 

when the trial court’s certification decision is inextricably intertwined with the 

merits of the case, this court may dispose of the appeal on the merits. Baugh, 

117 F.3d at 202 n.24.

Suria renews his claim for damages for his lost personal property, 

asserting that the loss was the result of gross negligence and dereliction of 

official duty on the part of correctional officers. However, as the district court 

correctly determined, negligent conduct is not actionable under § 1983. See 

Marsh v. Jones, 53 F.3d 707, 711-12 (5th Cir. 1995). Even affording his brief 

liberal construction, Suria does not assert that his allegations established more 

than negligence. Alternatively, assuming that his allegations sufficiently 

stated a claim for an intentional deprivation of property, the district court 

correctly dismissed his complaint under the Parratt/Hudson doctrine because 

Suria had an adequate postdeprivation remedy, to wit: a state court lawsuit 

for conversion. See Allen v. Thomas, 388 F.3d 147, 149 (5th Cir. 2004); Murphy 

v. Collins, 26 F.3d 541, 543-44 (5th Cir. 1984). 

Thus, Suria has not shown that his appeal involves a nonfrivolous issue. 

See Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. Because the appeal is frivolous, it is dismissed. 

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2; Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202. Both the district court’s dismissal 

and the instant dismissal count as strikes for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996); see also Coleman v. 

Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 1759, 1763-64 (2015). Suria is cautioned that if he 

accumulates three strikes, he will no longer be allowed to proceed IFP in any 

civil action or appeal filed while he is detained in any facility unless he is in 

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

IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEALS DISMISSED; SANCTION 

WARNING ISSUED.

 Case: 15-10455 Document: 00513204898 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/23/2015