Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-10-30121/USCOURTS-ca5-10-30121-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Doolittle
Appellant
Shermieka Jarvis
Appellee
Landry
Appellee
Linda Ramsey
Appellee
Smith
Appellee
Jimmy Smith
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-30121

Summary Calendar

JOHN DOOLITTLE,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

SHERMIEKA JARVIS; UNKNOWN LANDRY, Lieutenant; JIMMY SMITH,

Warden; UNKNOWN SMITH, Captain; LINDA RAMSEY,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:09-CV-951

Before KING, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

John Doolittle, Louisiana prisoner # 109680, moves this court to proceed

in forma pauperis (IFP) in this appeal from the dismissal of his civil rights

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his complaint, Doolittle asserted claims

based on, inter alia, the service of tainted prison food and the denial of

prescription medication for high blood pressure.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 22, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

 Case: 10-30121 Document: 00511182380 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/22/2010
No. 10-30121

The district court dismissed Doolittle’s complaint as frivolous. It

determined, relying on George v. King, 837 F.2d 705, 707 (5th Cir. 1988), that

a single incident of unintended food poisoning was not a constitutional violation.

The district court also determined that Doolittle had not alleged that he suffered

a physical injury as a result of the denial of his blood pressure pills. The district

court denied Doolittle leave to proceed IFP on appeal, certifying that the appeal

was not taken in good faith. Doolittle’s IFP motion is a challenge to that

certification. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).

Doolittle contends that the district court has not made findings as to

whether he was served tainted food and whether there was an interference with

his prescribed medication. To the extent that Doolittle is arguing that the

district court erred by not making factual findings regarding the defendants’

alleged actions in interfering with his medication and serving tainted food, he

fails to show that he has a nonfrivolous issue for appeal. See Denton v.

Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992).

Doolittle does not address the district court’s determination that he had

not alleged a physical injury from the denial of his prescription medication. See

42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e). When an appellant fails to identify any error in the district

court’s analysis, it is the same as if the appellant had not appealed that issue.

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

Although pro se briefs are afforded liberal construction, Haines v. Kerner, 404

U.S. 519, 520 (1972), arguments must be briefed in order to be preserved. Yohey

v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1983). Doolittle has abandoned any

challenge to the district court’s dismissal of his claim regarding the denial of his

prescription medication by failing to brief the issue. See id.

As to his claim regarding the service of tainted food, Doolittle reasserts his

contention that the defendants acted deliberately in serving the food. “[A] single

incident of unintended food poisoning, whether suffered by one or many

prisoners at an institution, does not constitute a violation of the constitutional

2

 Case: 10-30121 Document: 00511182380 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/22/2010
No. 10-30121

rights of the affected prisoners.” George, 837 F.2d at 707. To establish a

constitutional violation on a claim of deliberate indifference, a prisoner must

establish not only that the defendants acted in an objectively unreasonable

manner, but also that they “intended the consequence of those actions.” Wagner

v. Bay City, Tex., 227 F.3d 316, 324 (5th Cir. 2000).

In relying on the authority of George to dismiss Doolittle’s claim regarding

the service of tainted food, the district court implicitly determined that Doolittle

had merely alleged a single incident of unintended food poisoning. Doolittle has

not pointed to any allegation to the effect that prison officials intended to cause

harm, nor has he identified a factual allegation regarding any other incident of

food poisoning. He has not shown that he has a nonfrivolous issue for appeal in

connection with the dismissal of his claim regarding the service of tainted food.

See George, 837 F.2d at 707.

Doolittle has not demonstrated that he will present a nonfrivolous issue

on appeal. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly,

his motion to proceed IFP is denied, and the appeal is dismissed as frivolous.

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

Both the district court’s dismissal of the complaint and the dismissal of

this appeal as frivolous count as strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Doolittle 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).

IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING

ISSUED.

3

 Case: 10-30121 Document: 00511182380 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/22/2010