# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or 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 **Oldh am,**  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 C ounty district attorney, Henry Garza;
and the Bell C ounty 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: 01/11/2023No. 22

- 50347

2 Abdullah’s suit for failure to state a claim under 2 8 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).

W e 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

p lainly precluded

. 1 Further, t o the extent Abdullah attempts to challenge his current detention, th at claim i s 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 de nied 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 subs tantial 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 a ny allegations supporting a supervisory liability t heory 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 Po lice 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 de fense attorney Galligan fails because his attorney is not a state actor subject to § 1983 liability. See Mills v. Crim

. Dist. C t. 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.” Thomp son v. Upshur County , 245 F.3d 447, 458

– 59 (5th Cir. 2001)

. Case: 22-50347 Document: 00516606682 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/11/2023No. 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 th at 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 incarcerat ed or detained in a ny 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 complain t 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