Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-60425/USCOURTS-ca5-15-60425-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Adele
Appellant
Adam Drake
Appellee
Bobby Fairley
Appellee
Preston Goff
Appellee
Johnathan Moran
Appellee
Terry Rogers
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-60425

Summary Calendar

DAVID ADELE,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

TERRY ROGERS; ADAM DRAKE; PRESTON GOFF; JOHNATHAN MORAN; 

BOBBY FAIRLEY,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:14-CV-448

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

David Adele, now Mississippi prisoner # 200344, appeals the dismissal 

of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous for failing to state a claim and as 

malicious. He argues that, as a pretrial detainee, he was denied access to the 

courts and that his religious rights were violated.

 

* 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

October 11, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-60425 Document: 00513712890 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/11/2016
No. 15-60425

2

On appeal, Adele challenges the dismissal of his claims against only 

Terry Rogers and Johnathan Moran. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-

25 (5th Cir. 1993). Consequently, he has waived any claims related to the 

dismissal of the other defendants. See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. Deputy 

Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

We review the dismissal of Adele’s claims of denial of access to the courts 

de novo. See Samford v. Dretke, 562 F.3d 674, 678 (5th Cir. 2009). Adele makes 

no argument showing that he was actually prejudiced by the actions of prison 

officials. Consequently, the district court did not err in dismissing these claims 

as frivolous for failing to state a claim. See Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 

403, 415 (2002); Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996); Johnson v. 

Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 299, 310-11 (5th Cir. 1997).

Review of the dismissal of Adele’s religious claims is for abuse of 

discretion. See Pittman v. Moore, 980 F.2d 994, 994-95 (5th Cir. 1993). 

Because Adele’s claims were duplicative of claims raised in pending litigation, 

the district court did not err by dismissing them. See id.; 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), 1915A(b)(1). Nevertheless, because of the basis of the 

dismissal, the dismissal should have been without prejudice to Adele’s 

prosecution of the duplicative suit, Adele v. Goff, Civil Action No. 1:14-CV-463, 

(Goff), which is pending in the Southern District of Mississippi. See Pittman, 

980 F.2d at 995. Accordingly, the judgment is MODIFIED so that the dismissal 

is without prejudice as to the aforesaid litigation, and is otherwise with 

prejudice. The judgment is affirmed as modified.

The district court’s dismissal of Adele’s complaint as frivolous counts as 

a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 

388 (5th Cir. 1996). Adele also received a strike based on the district court’s 

dismissal of his complaint as frivolous in Adele v. Jackson, 1:14-CV-449, (S.D. 

 Case: 15-60425 Document: 00513712890 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/11/2016
No. 15-60425

3

M.S. Jan. 12, 2015). Adele is cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes, 

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).

MODIFIED; AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED; SANCTION WARNING 

ISSUED.

 Case: 15-60425 Document: 00513712890 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/11/2016