United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 22-50347

Summary Calendar

Tamir Abdullah, 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

State of Texas; Henry Garza; Sheriff Eddie Lange; 

Killeen Police Department; John Galligan, 

Defendants—Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 6:22-CV-160

Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Appellant Tamir Abdullah brought the instant case, proceeding pro se 

and in forma pauperis, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges constitutional 

violations committed by his attorney, John Galligan; the State of Texas; the 

Killeen Police Department; the Bell County district attorney, Henry Garza;

and the Bell County sheriff, Eddie Lange. The district court dismissed 

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

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 11, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-50347 Document: 00516606682 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/11/2023
No. 22-50347

2

Abdullah’s suit for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 

Under this section, a district court must dismiss a complaint if it is

“frivolous,” “malicious,” or “fails to state a claim on which relief may be 

granted.” § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)–(ii). 

We conclude that there was no error in the district court’s dismissal. 

Rather, we agree with the district court that many of Abdullah’s claims are 

plainly precluded.

1 Further, to the extent Abdullah attempts to challenge his 

current detention, that claim is not properly before us. See Preiser v. 

Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 488–90 (1973)(noting that a petition for habeas relief 

is the proper remedy to challenge the facts or duration of confinement).

Finally, Abdullah’s remaining claim asserting that he was denied adequate

medical care is similarly meritless. To establish such a claim, Abdullah was 

required to plead that prison officials acted with deliberate indifference to his 

medical needs.2 See Hare v. City of Corinth, 74 F.3d 633, 636 (5th Cir. 1996) 

(en banc). But “[d]eliberate indifference is an extremely high standard to 

meet.” Domino v. Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Just., 239 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir. 2001). 

It “cannot be inferred merely from a negligent or even a grossly negligent 

response to a substantial risk of serious harm.” Thompson v. Upshur County, 

1 First, his claim against the State of Texas is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. 

Moore v. La. Bd. of Elementary & Secondary Educ., 743 F.3d 959, 963 (5th Cir. 2014). Second, 

he fails to properly plead any allegations supporting a supervisory liability theory against 

Sheriff Lange. See Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 693 (1978). Third, his 

claim against the Killeen Police Department is precluded because the Department is not a 

legal entity capable of being sued. See Darby v. Pasadena Police Dep’t, 939 F.2d 311, 313 (5th 

Cir. 1991). Fourth, District Attorney Garza is immune from suit for actions taken in 

connection with judicial proceedings. See Boyd v. Biggers, 31 F.3d 279, 285 (5th Cir. 1994).

Finally, Abdullah’s claim against his defense attorney Galligan fails because his attorney is 

not a state actor subject to § 1983 liability. See Mills v. Crim. Dist. Ct. No. 3, 837 F.2d 677, 

679 (5th Cir. 1988).

2 To establish deliberate indifference, a plaintiff must plead that “[1] the official 

was aware of facts from which an inference of substantial risk of serious harm could be 

drawn; [2] the official actually drew that inference; and [3] the official’s response indicates 

the official subjectively intended that harm occur.” Thompson v. Upshur County, 245 F.3d 

447, 458–59 (5th Cir. 2001).

Case: 22-50347 Document: 00516606682 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/11/2023
No. 22-50347

3

245 F.3d 447, 459 (5th Cir. 2001). Abdullah has failed to plead any allegations 

which could be construed as establishing deliberate indifference. Thus, this 

claim also fails.

Abdullah is warned that the district court’s dismissal of his action as 

frivolous counts as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). If Abdullah 

accumulates three strikes, he will not be able 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. 

AFFIRMED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED. The motion to 

amend party names is DENIED. 3

3 On appeal, Abdullah moved to “amend the names of the parties to this action.” 

The motion seeks to add several previously unnamed defendants. However, Abdullah 

never moved to amend his complaint or add additional parties in the proceedings before 

the district court. His attempt to do so here on appeal then is improper. 

Case: 22-50347 Document: 00516606682 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/11/2023