United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit ____________ 

No. 23-40252 

Summary Calendar 

____________ 

Patrick Dennis Hostetter, 

Plaintiff—Appellant, 

versus

Aransas County; Armando Chapa; Jason Andrade; 

Joshua Doane; Manuel Solis, 

Defendants—Appellees. 

______________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 2:22-CV-182 

______________________________ 

Before King, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Patrick Dennis Hostetter, Texas prisoner # 2411349, who was a 

pretrial detainee at the Aransas County Detention Center (ACDC) at the 

time he filed his complaint, appeals from the dismissal of his pro se 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 suit as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(b)(1). Hostetter’s claims arose from allegations 

_____________________ 

*

 This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

January 11, 2024 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 23-40252 Document: 00517030928 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/11/2024
No. 23-40252 

2 

that he was involved in a van accident while being transported from the 

ACDC to the county courthouse. Prior to the dismissal, the magistrate judge 

held a Spears hearing to allow Hostetter to clarify his claims. See Spears v. 

McCotter, 766 F.2d 179, 181-82 (5th Cir. 1985), abrogated on other grounds 

by Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989). On appeal, Hostetter argues that 

the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, 

failed to report the accident, and conspired to cover up the accident and 

retaliate against him. 

This court reviews dismissals under § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 

§ 1915A(b)(1) de novo, applying the same standard as when reviewing the 

grant of a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 

DeMoss v. Crain, 636 F.3d 145, 152 (5th Cir. 2011). Dismissal is appropriate 

where a complaint does not “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as 

true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 

556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 

570 (2007)). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief 

above the speculative level on the assumption that all the allegations in the 

complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 

(internal citations and footnote omitted). “[E]ven for pro se 

plaintiffs . . . conclusory allegations or legal conclusions masquerading as 

factual conclusions will not suffice to state a claim for relief.” Coleman v. 

Lincoln Par. Det. Ctr., 858 F.3d 307, 309 (5th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted). 

Initially, Hostetter failed to allege the existence of an official policy, or 

that Aransas County was aware of a widespread or common custom, that 

caused his injury. Hicks-Fields v. Harris Cnty., 860 F.3d 803, 808 (5th Cir. 

2017). Thus, he shows no error in the district court’s dismissal of his 

municipal liability claims. 

Case: 23-40252 Document: 00517030928 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/11/2024
No. 23-40252 

3 

Hostetter also failed state a claim that Officers Joshua Doane and 

Manuel Solis were deliberately indifferent to his safety by placing him in 

restraints and failing to secure him with a seatbelt on the morning of the 

accident. To this end, in the district court, Hostetter did not allege facts 

showing that the officers drove recklessly or that they otherwise had 

knowledge of a substantial risk of harm. See Baughman v. Hickman, 935 F.3d 

302, 307-09 (5th Cir. 2019); Rogers v. Boatright, 709 F.3d 403, 408-09 (5th 

Cir. 2013). As for Hostetter’s allegations that Officers Doane and Solis failed 

to provide emergency medical treatment after the accident, he failed to 

sufficiently allege facts demonstrating that the officers were aware of and 

consciously disregarded the need for such treatment. See Lawson v. Dallas 

Cnty., 286 F.3d 257, 262 (5th Cir. 2002). In this regard, his description of 

the accident did not indicate that it was serious, and he did not contend that 

he manifested any physical symptoms demonstrating a need for emergency 

medical treatment. 

Further, Hostetter’s claim that Captain Jason Andrade verbally 

harassed him, standing alone, did not support a viable constitutional claim. 

See Calhoun v. Hargrove, 312 F.3d 730, 734 (5th Cir. 2002). And Hostetter 

did not allege facts showing Captain Andrade interfered with his medical 

treatment or intended to retaliate against him for exercising a specific 

constitutional right. See DeMarco v. Davis, 914 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 2019). 

To the extent Hostetter complained that Deputy Chief Armando 

Chapa improperly resolved his grievances, a prisoner has no federally 

protected liberty interest in having grievances resolved to his satisfaction. See 

Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 374 (5th Cir. 2005). Moreover, Hostetter 

failed to state a claim of deliberate indifference related to Deputy Chapa’s 

denial of his requests for a clinical evaluation and further testing. The records 

provided by Hostetter demonstrate that Deputy Chapa relied on Hostetter’s 

x-ray results, which revealed no abnormalities, and the fact that he had been 

Case: 23-40252 Document: 00517030928 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/11/2024
No. 23-40252 

4 

seen by a nurse, who gave him over-the-counter medication. Further, based 

on the facts as alleged in the district court, Hostetter failed to state a claim 

that Deputy Chapa disregarded a serious medical need by interfering with his 

medical treatment or by denying him prescribed medication. See Lawson, 286 

F.3d at 262. 

To the extent that Hostetter properly raised a claim that the 

defendants denied him access to the courts by conspiring to cover up the 

accident and by failing to file a report about it, he did not sufficiently allege 

that the officers’ actions impeded his ability to prepare and transmit 

necessary legal documents to a court, see Brewer v. Wilkinson, 3 F.3d 816, 821 

(5th Cir. 1993), or to raise a nonfrivolous legal claim, see DeMarco, 914 F.3d 

at 387-88. 

On appeal, Hostetter also asserts new claims and factual allegations 

that were not raised in his complaint or at his Spears hearing related to Officer 

Doane’s driving and threats made by Captain Andrade and Deputy Chapa, 

which Hostetter claims resulted in his medicine being taken away. Although 

Hostetter initially made some of these allegations in his objections to the 

magistrate judge’s report, we will not consider them because they were not 

properly before the district court. See United States v. Armstrong, 951 F.2d 

626, 630 (5th Cir. 1992). Moreover, Hostetter has failed to brief, and has 

thus abandoned, any argument related to the district court’s denial of his 

requests to amend his complaint. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 

(5th Cir. 1993). 

For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s judgment is 

AFFIRMED. As the district court explained, its dismissal of Hostetter’s 

complaint counts as a strike under § 1915(g). See Coleman v. Tollefson, 575 

U.S. 532, 537-39 (2015). Hostetter previously received a § 1915(g) strike 

based on the dismissal of another § 1983 suit. Hostetter v. City of Corpus 

Case: 23-40252 Document: 00517030928 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/11/2024
No. 23-40252 

5 

Christi, No. 2:17-cv-295 (S.D. Tex., Nov. 28, 2017). Hostetter is 

CAUTIONED that, if he accumulates three strikes, he will not be allowed 

to proceed in forma pauperis 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). 

Case: 23-40252 Document: 00517030928 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/11/2024