Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-30520/USCOURTS-ca5-14-30520-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
N. Burl Cain
Appellee
Sean Monroe
Appellant
Kenneth Norris
Appellee
Jonathan Roundtree
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-30520

SEAN MONROE,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

N. BURL CAIN, Warden; KENNETH NORRIS, Assistant Warden; 

JONATHAN ROUNDTREE, Medical Doctor,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:12-CV-798

Before KING, JOLLY and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Sean Monroe, Louisiana prisoner # 294086, moves this court for leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the summary judgment 

dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and from the certification that his 

appeal was not taken in good faith. He argues that the district court erred by 

granting summary judgment because there are six genuine issues of material 

fact that would preclude summary judgment.

* 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

February 18, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-30520 Document: 00512939161 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/18/2015
No. 14-30520

By moving to proceed IFP, Monroe 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). This court’s 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). This court may 

dismiss the appeal sua sponte under Fifth Circuit Rule 42.2 if it is frivolous. 

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

This court reviews the grant of a motion for summary judgment de novo. 

Xtreme Lashes, LLC v. Xtended Beauty, Inc., 576 F.3d 221, 226 (5th Cir. 2009). 

Summary judgment is warranted “if 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). The court draws all reasonable inferences 

in favor of Monroe, the nonmoving party. Haverda v. Hays County, 723 F.3d 

586, 591 (5th Cir. 2013). “A genuine dispute as to a material fact exists when, 

after considering the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, 

admissions on file, and affidavits, a court determines that the evidence is such 

that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the party opposing the 

motion.” Id.

As the district court determined, Monroe’s complaints against Dr. 

Roundtree fail because his medical records establish that he received ongoing

medical treatment for complaints of abdominal pain. See Gobert v. Caldwell, 

463 F.3d 339, 346 n.24 (5th Cir. 2006). Neither his disagreement with the 

treatment he received nor his assertion that he should have undergone 

additional diagnostic testing and surgery gives rise to a claim of deliberate 

indifference. Id. at 346; see Domino v. Texas Dep’t of Crim. Justice, 239 F.3d 

752, 756 (5th Cir. 2001). To the extent that Monroe sought to hold Dr. 

2

Case: 14-30520 Document: 00512939161 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/18/2015
No. 14-30520

Roundtree vicariously liable, his claim is not cognizable. See Carnaby v. City 

of Houston, 636 F.3d 183, 189 (5th Cir. 2011). We decline to address Monroe’s 

challenge to the constitutionality of applying the Patient Protection and 

Affordable Care Act to Louisiana prisoners. See United States v. Armstrong, 

951 F.2d 626, 630 (5th Cir. 1992).

Monroe’s motion to proceed IFP is GRANTED and the judgment of the 

district court is AFFIRMED.

3

Case: 14-30520 Document: 00512939161 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/18/2015