Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-30537/USCOURTS-ca5-15-30537-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Assistant Warden, Federal Correctional Complex Oakdale
Appellee
Federal Bureau of Prisons
Appellee
Jeremy Pinson
Appellant
Warden, Federal Correctional Complex Oakdale
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-30537

Summary Calendar

JEREMY PINSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; WARDEN, FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL 

COMPLEX OAKDALE; ASSISTANT WARDEN, FEDERAL 

CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX OAKDALE,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:14-CV-450

Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Jeremy Pinson, federal prisoner # 16267-064, filed a Bivens v. Six 

Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), 

complaint against the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and the Warden and 

Assistant Warden at the Federal Correctional Complex in Oakdale, Louisiana

 

* 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

April 29, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-30537 Document: 00513486319 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/29/2016
No. 15-30537

2

(the Oakdale defendants). When Pinson filed his complaint, he was

incarcerated at the Administrative Maximum United States Penitentiary in 

Florence, Colorado (ADX Florence). 

In his complaint, Pinson averred that he was a former member of a 

Sureño gang known as the “Florencia 13” and that he was being targeted by 

other gang members at ADX Florence because he had cooperated with 

government officials. Given the ongoing threat of violence, Pinson alleged that

ADX Florence officials arranged to transfer him into the Reintegration 

Housing Unit Program at Oakdale but that the Oakdale defendants refused to 

accept him into the program in retaliation for Pinson having filed lawsuits 

against BOP staff.

The district court dismissed the complaint as frivolous and for failure to 

state a claim, finding that the BOP was entitled to sovereign immunity and 

that because Pinson was transferred from ADX Florence and therefore was no 

longer in imminent danger, he had no cause of action for a transfer to a more 

preferable institution. Because the district court dismissed the complaint as 

frivolous and for failure to state a claim, we apply de novo review. See Geiger 

v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373 (5th Cir. 2005).

The district court correctly determined that the BOP was entitled to 

sovereign immunity. See Correctional Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 71-

72 (2001). With regard to his retaliation claim, Pinson has not alleged a 

chronology of events from which retaliation can be inferred, and his 

conclusional assertion that he was retaliated against, without more, is 

insufficient to state a claim. See Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 1166 (5th Cir. 

1995). Because Pinson does not dispute that he is no longer housed at ADX 

Florence, the district court did not err in finding that Pinson was no longer in 

imminent danger from gang-related violence so as to warrant his transfer to a 

 Case: 15-30537 Document: 00513486319 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/29/2016
No. 15-30537

3

more preferable institution. See Streeter v. Hooper, 618 F.2d 1178, 1182 (5th 

Cir. 1980); Herman v. Holiday, 238 F.3d 660, 665 (5th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, 

the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Pinson’s motion for 

appointment of counsel is DENIED.

 Case: 15-30537 Document: 00513486319 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/29/2016