Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-40402/USCOURTS-ca5-14-40402-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jeffery Calfee
Appellee
Frederick Gooden
Appellee
Dawn Grounds
Appellee
Norris Jordan
Appellee
Randy McBain
Appellee
James Powers
Appellee
Eduardo Sanchez
Appellant
Unit Grievance Department
Appellee
Terence Watt
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-40402

EDUARDO SANCHEZ,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

WARDEN DAWN GROUNDS, Warden at Telford Unit; JEFFERY CALFEE, 

Assistant Warden at Telford Unit; JAMES POWERS, also known as FNU 

Powers; FREDERICK GOODEN; OFFICER RANDY MCBAIN, also known as 

FNU McBain; NORRIS JORDAN; TERENCE WATT; UNIT GRIEVANCE 

DEPARTMENT,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:13-CV-2

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Eduardo Sanchez, Texas prisoner # 873766, moves to proceed in forma 

pauperis (IFP) to appeal the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, in 

which he asserted claims of due process violations and retaliation against 

various employees of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 23, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-40402 Document: 00512912468 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/23/2015
No. 14-40402

from a prison disciplinary proceeding. The district court granted the 

defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the claims 

lacked merit, and the defendants were entitled to Eleventh Amendment 

immunity and qualified immunity. The district court certified that the appeal 

had not been taken in good faith and denied Sanchez permission to proceed 

IFP. 

By moving to proceed IFP, Sanchez is challenging the district court’s 

certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 

117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Our inquiry into an appellant’s good faith 

“is limited to whether the appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits 

(and therefore not frivolous).” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 

1983) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We may dismiss the 

appeal if it is frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same 

standards as the district court. 10 Ring Precision, Inc. v. Jones, 722 F.3d 711, 

717 (5th Cir. 2013). Summary judgment is appropriate where the “movant 

shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant 

is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a).

As an initial matter, Sanchez contends that the district court did not 

apply the proper standard in considering the defendants’ summary judgment 

motion. This argument finds no support in the record, which reflects that the 

district court applied the summary judgment standard. 

Sanchez first challenges the district court’s determination that his due 

process challenge to his reduction in classification and the denial of a 

visitation, prior to any disciplinary hearing, lacked merit. This claim of 

“punishment” without notice and a hearing fails, however, as Sanchez’s change 

in classification status and the denial of visitation privileges do not implicate 

2

Case: 14-40402 Document: 00512912468 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/23/2015
No. 14-40402

a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause. See United States v. 

Jones, 664 F.3d 966, 974 (5th Cir. 2011); Malchi v. Thaler, 211 F.3d 953, 958 

(5th Cir. 2000); Berry v. Brady, 192 F.3d 504, 508 (5th Cir. 1999). Further, to 

the extent Sanchez contends prison rules and regulations were violated in 

connection with his reduction in classification and denial of visitation, he is not 

entitled to relief. See Jackson v. Cain, 864 F.2d 1235, 1251 (5th Cir. 1989). 

Next, Sanchez challenges the dismissal of his claim that the defendants 

violated his due process rights throughout the disciplinary hearing 

proceedings. As the summary judgment evidence reflects, Sanchez’s 

disciplinary conviction resulted in a punishment of 15 days of recreation 

restriction, 30 days of commissary restriction, 15 days of cell restriction, a 

reduction in classification, and the loss of 100 days of good time. None of those 

consequences implicated a protected liberty interest for Sanchez. See Kimbrell 

v. Cockrell, 311 F.3d 361, 362 (5th Cir. 2002); Malchi, 211 F.3d at 958; Luken 

v. Scott, 71 F.3d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, Sanchez has not shown

that he was entitled to due process. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 

(1995).

Sanchez also contends that the district court erred in dismissing his 

claim based on the filing of an allegedly false disciplinary charge. However, 

because he did not make the required showing that the disciplinary case 

terminated in his favor, the defendants were entitled to summary judgment on 

his stand-alone claim based on the allegedly false charge. See Woods v. Smith,

60 F.3d 1161, 1165 n.16 (5th Cir. 1995). 

With regard to his claims of retaliation, Sanchez alleged in the district 

court that he was subjected to retaliation by Officer Terence Watt and Captain 

Frederick Gooden. On appeal, however, he does not address the retaliation 

claim against Officer Watt. Similarly, he does not address the claim against 

3

Case: 14-40402 Document: 00512912468 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/23/2015
No. 14-40402

Captain Gooden to the extent he alleged retaliation based upon the F Pod’s hot 

water problems, another disciplinary case that he received, the confiscation of 

some of his property in January 2012, and an alleged threat that Gooden made 

to him in January 2013. Sanchez thus abandons, by failing to brief, any 

challenge to the dismissal of those claims. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 

224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). The remainder of his retaliation claims against Captain 

Gooden are unavailing, as Sanchez’s allegations are conclusory and speculative 

and do not give rise to any inference that Gooden’s actions were motivated by 

a retaliatory intent. See Woods, 60 F.3d at 1166. We do not consider Sanchez’s 

argument, raised for the first time on appeal, that Assistant Warden Jeffery 

Calfee retaliated against him. See Hannah v. United States, 523 F.3d 597, 600 

n.1 (5th Cir. 2008). 

Sanchez does not challenge the dismissal of his claims against Assistant 

Warden Calfee, Sergeant Randy McBain, Lieutenant Norris Jordan, and the 

Unit Grievance Staff. Nor does he address the basis for the district court’s 

dismissal of his claims against Warden Dawn Grounds and Major James

Powers arising from their alleged failure to properly respond to his letters. 

Consequently, Sanchez abandons these claims by failing to brief them. See 

Yohey, 985 F.2d at 224-25.

In his final point of error, Sanchez challenges the district court’s 

dismissal of his claim that Warden Grounds and Major Powers created an 

unwritten custom and policy to punish inmates, through demotion in 

classification, without notice and a hearing. This claim is unavailing, however, 

because the purported policy does not result in any constitutional injury. See 

Wernecke v. Garcia, 591 F.3d 386, 401 (5th Cir. 2009); Malchi, 211 F.3d at 958.

Sanchez has failed to show that his appeal involves any arguably 

meritorious issue. See Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. Accordingly, his motion for 

4

Case: 14-40402 Document: 00512912468 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/23/2015
No. 14-40402

leave to proceed IFP on appeal is denied, and his appeal is dismissed as 

frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The dismissal of 

this appeal as frivolous counts as one strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

Sanchez is cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes under § 1915(g), he 

will not be able to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is 

incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of

serious physical injury. See § 1915(g). 

MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING 

ISSUED.

5

Case: 14-40402 Document: 00512912468 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/23/2015