# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 10467 Summary Calendar

**John David Kennemer,**

Plaintiff

— Appellant **,**

versus
**Parker County, Texas; La Salle Southwest Corrections; Larry Fowler, Sheriff of Parker County;**  **Jack County, Texas; Tom Spurlock, Sheriff of Jack County; Jay Eason; FNU Garcia, Correctional Officer;**  **Warden John Doe; Corporal John Doe; James Robinson; FNU Cof**  **fee; John Does 1**

**- 7; Officer Jane Doe,** 

Defendants

— Appellees

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:20

- CV

- 56

Before **Wiener, Dennis,** and **Haynes,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 8, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-10467 Document: 00516387564 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/08/2022No. 21

- 10467

2 Appellant John Kennemer brought the instant case , proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis , under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

. He alleg es constitutional and statutory violations promulgated by the above

- capti oned individuals , municipalities, and municipal entities while Kennemer was detained at county jails in Parker County, Texas, and Jack County, Texas. Because Kennemer proceeded against “a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity , ” the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) required the district court to review the complaint and dismiss it if it was “frivolous, malicious, or fail [ed] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (b)(1). Kennemer’s in f orma pauperis status also subjected him to sua sponte dismissal if his case was “frivolous or malicious”; “fail[ed] to state a claim on which relief may be granted”; or sought “monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief.” Id. § 191 5(e)(2)(B).
Applying these standards, the district court dismissed several of
Kennemer’s claims and entered a final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) as to those claims such that we have jurisdiction over Kennemer’s timely interlocutor y appeal as to those claims . We conclude no error as to this judgment

. First, as to the municipalities and municipal entities

— Parker County, Jack County, and La Salle Southwest C orrections 1

— Kennemer failed to properly allege municipal liability as required by Monell v. Department of
Social Services of N ew York , 436 U.S. 658 (1978). “To establish municipal liability under § 1983, a plaintiff must show that (1) an official policy

1 Even though LaSalle is a private corporation, it is subject to the same rules as

mu nicipalities because private prisons engage in “a fundamentally governmental function

. ” Rosborough v. Mgmt. & Training Corp. , 350 F.3d 459, 461 (5th Cir. 2003) (per curiam)

. Case: 21-10467 Document: 00516387564 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/08/2022No. 21

- 10467

3 (2) promulgated by the municipal policymaker (3) was the moving force behind the violation of a constitutional right.” Trammell v. Fruge , 868 F.3d 332, 344 (5th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). But, as the district court pointed out, Kennemer’s pleadings “never recite[] a particular policy, practice, or custom of any of these entities implemented by a policy maker that caused him to sustain injury.”
Second, as to the defendants who were supervisors of those municipalities and municipal entities

— Parker County Sherriff Larry Fowler, Jack County Sherriff Tom Spurlock, and La Salle Director of Operations Jay
Eason

— Kennemer failed t o show that these individuals had any personal involvement in the incidents he complains of . Supervisors cannot be liable for the actions of others and must be deliberately indifferent to violations of a prisoner’s constitutional rights. See Alton v. Tex

. A&M Univ. , 168 F.3d 196, 200 (5th Cir. 1999) (“Only the direct acts o r omissions of government officials, not the acts of subordinates, will give rise to individual liability under § 1983.”). Kennemer does not plead deliberate indifference. Cf. Brown v

. Callahan , 623 F.3d 249, 255 (5th Cir. 2010) (“Proof of deliberate indifference normally requires a plaintiff to show a pattern of violations and that the inadequate training or supervision is obvious and obviously likely to result in
a constitutional vio lation.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).
Third, Kennemer claims that the officers that transported him
between the facilities he was held at

— Officers Garcia, Robinson, and various
unnamed officers

— did so under unsafe conditions. For ep isodic acts, such as those that occurred to Kennemer, this court has adopted a subjective
deliberate indifference standard. See Hare v. City of Corinth , 74 F.3d 633, 643 (5th Cir. 1996). Again, Kennemer failed to adequately plead subjective
deliberate in difference. Case: 21-10467 Document: 00516387564 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/08/2022No. 21

- 10467

4 Fourth, because the Americans with Disabilities Act does not permit individual liability, the district court properly dismissed those claims. Cf.
Lollar v. Baker , 196 F.3d 603, 610 (5th Cir. 1999) (in the context of the Rehabilitation Act)

. Fifth, because Kennemer is no longer at either the Parker County or Jack County facilities, his claims for injunctive relief are moot. Cf. Herman v. Holiday , 238 F.3d 660, 665 (5th Cir. 2001) (“ [Plaintiff’s] tr ansfer from the ECDC to the Dixon Correctional Institute in Jackson, Louisiana, rendered his claims for declaratory and injunctive relief moot. ”).

**AFFIRMED** and **REMANDED**

**. 2** 

2 The case is remanded only because there are pending claims that were not pa rt of this appeal. Case: 21-10467 Document: 00516387564 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/08/2022