P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 30423 Su m m ar yC al endar P E T E R R O YA L F R E D , J R . Pl ai nt i f f

- Appe l l ant
v. FORC H T W AD E CO RRE CT I O N AL CEN TER; VEN ETIA M I CH AEL; ANTHO NYB A T S ON ; D R . HE R N; LA URAG E HR I G; W. C OL T P A L MER; UN KNO W N I NSURANCE CO. ; RI CHARD S TA LDER ; L I NDA RAM S EY D efen da n t s- A pp el l ees A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he W es t er n D i st r i c tof Loui si ana U SD C N o. 1: 07- C V
- 2098 B ef ore G A R Z A , C L E M E N T , an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * P eter R oyA l fred , Jr., L ou i sian apr i son er #31 5 0 2 3 , m ov es for l ea ve to proceed i n f

orm a pa u peri s ( IFP ) on a pp ealfoll ow i n g t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s den i alof hi s I FP m o t i o n a nd c e r t i f i c at i o n t hathi s appe alw as no tt ak e n i n g o o d fait h. A lf red’ s I F P m ot i on chal l en gi n g t h e cer t i f i cat i on deci si on “ m u stbe di rect ed solely to th e tri a lco u rt’ s rea son s f or th e cer tifi ca ti on de ci sion . ” B augh v. T aylor , United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D November

12, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 30423

2 117 F . 3d197 , 202 ( 5th C i r. 199 7) . O u r i n qu i ry i n t o w h et h er t h e app eali s t ak en i n good fai t h “ i s l i m i t ed t o w h et h er t h e app eali n volves l egal poi n t s argua bl e on th eir m erits (an dth ere fore n ot frivo l ou s). ” Ho w ar d v . Ki ng , 707 F. 2d 215, 220 (5 th C ir. 1 9 8 3 ) (in te rn a l qu o ta tion m a rk s a n dcita tion s o m itted ). T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t is d ir e c te dto d is m is s aco m p la in t file db yap r is o n e rif th e co m p la in t is fr iv o lo u s . S ee2 8 U .S .C . § § 1 9 1 5 A (b )(1 ) & 1 9 1 5 (e )(2 )(B ). T h is c o ur tre vi e w s t he di s m i s s alo f ac o m pl ai nta s f

r ivo l o us f

o ra bus e o f

di s c r e t i o n. G eiger v. Jow ers , 4 0 4 F .3 d3 7 1 , 3 7 3 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). A c o m p la in t is fr iv o lo u s if i t lack s “an a rg u a b l e b a sis i n l a w or fact. ” I d. “Aco m p la in t la c k s a n a r g u a b le b a sis i n l a w if it i s b a s e d o n a n in d i sp u tab l y m eritl ess l eg a lthe ory [. ]” I d. (in te rn a l qu o ta tion m a rk s a n dcita tion s o m itted ). A l fredarg u es th a t th e d efen d a n ts viol a tedh i s E i gh th A m en d m en t ri gh ts byfail i ng t o pr o vi de hi m w i t h ac o nt i nuo us po s i t ive a i r w aypr e s s ur e m ac hi ne ( C P A P ) t o treath i s d i agn osed severe s l eep ap n ea. Apl ai n t i f f st ates a cau se of a cti on u n d er t h e E i gh th A m en d m en t w h en h e al l eg es t h a t a d efen d a n t ha s, w i th del iber at e i ndi f

fer enc e, ex pos ed hi m t o a n un r eas onabl e r i sk of s er i ous dam age t o h is fu tu r e h e a lth . Hel l i ng v. McKi n n ey , 5 0 9 U .S . 2 5 , 3 5 (1 9 9 3 ); Bur le s o n v. T exas D ep’

tof C ri m i n al Ju st i ce , 393 F . 3d577 , 589 ( 5th C i r. 200 4) . To establ i sh del iberate i n dif

f e r e nc eapri s o ne rm u stshow t h at th e defen da n t s “ ( 1) w ere aw are of fact s f rom w h ich an i n ference of excess ive ri sk to t h e pri soner’ s healt h or safet y coul d be d raw n an d (2 ) th at th ey act u al l y drew an i n ference t h at s u ch p o te n ti a lf

or h a rm ex i sted . ” B u rleson , 393 F . 3dat 589 . (i n t erna lqu ot ati on m a r k s a n dcit a tio n s o m itt e d). “ D e lib e r a te in d iffe r e n c e e n c o m p a s s e s o n ly u n n ecess a ry a n d w an t on i n f l i ct i on of

pain repu gn an tt o t h e consci en ce of m a n k i n d . ” McCorm i ck v . S ta l d er , 1 0 5 F .3d 1 0 5 9 , 1 0 6 1 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 7 ). “D i sa gr ee m en t w i th m ed i ca l trea tm en t d oe s n ot state a cl a i m for E ig h th A m en d m en t ind i ff

ere n ce to m ed i ca ln ee d s. ” No r t o n v . D i m azana , 122 F. 3d 286, 2 9 2 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 7 ).N o. 09- 30423

3 T h e r e c o r d s h o w s th a t A lfr e dre c e iv e da d e q u a te m e d ic a l tr e a tm e n t fo rh is sl ee p apnea dur i ng hi s st ay atFor c htW ade Cor r ec t i onalC ent er. F u rther , an af f i davi t by D r . A l phonzo Pachec o es t abl i she s t hat A l f r ed c ont i nue d to r ec eive m edi c alat t ent i on f

or hi s sl ee p apnea f

ol l ow i ng hi s t r ansf

er t o W i nn C or r ec t i onal Cent e ra nd thatt he s l e e p a pne a ne ve rpo s e d as e r i o us r i s k t o A l f red’ s he al t h. S ee B u rleson , 393 F . 3dat 589 . A l f red ha s been receivi n g C P A P t reat m en t s s i n ce M a y2 0 0 8 . A l fr e dh a s fa ile dto s h o w th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t a b u s e dits d is c r e tio n in d is m is s in gh is E ig h th A m e n d m e n t c la im a s fr iv o lo u s . S ee G eiger , 404F. 3d at 3 7 3 . F u r th e r , co n tr a r yto A lfr e d ’ s s u g g e s tio n , h e d idn o t h a v e arig h t t o ad e fa u lt ju d g m e n ts i m p lyb e c a u s e th e d e fe n d a n ts d idn o t r e s p o n dto h is s u it. S ee G a n th erv. Ing le , 75 F . 3d207 , 212 ( 5th C i r. 199 6) (“Ap a rty i s not en t i t l ed to a d e fa u lt ju d g m e n t a s am a tt e ro f r ig h t, e v e n w h e r e th e d e fe n d a n t is te c h n ic a lly in d e fa u lt.” ). A l f red’ s app eali s w i t h ou targu able m eri tan d i s f rivol ou s. See How ard , 7 0 7 F .2 da t 2 2 0 . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d is m is s a l o f A lfr e d ’ s co m p la in t a n dth is co u rt’s d ism iss a l of h is a p p e a l b o th co u n t a s s trik e s fo r p u rp o se s o f § 1 9 1 5 (g). Se eAde pegb a v . Ham m o ns , 103 F. 3d 383, 387- 88 ( 5t h C i r . 1996) . Al f r ed has at le a s t on e p r e v io u s s tr ik e . A lf red v. L of

t on , N o. 1: 08- C V
- 0554 (W . D . L a. S ept . 9, 200 8) . B ecau se A l f

red ha s now accum u l ated at l east t h ree st rikes, h e i s barred f rom proceedi n g IFP i n an y civi lact i on or ap pea lf i l ed w h i l e h e i s i n carcer ated o rde t ai ne d i n a ny fac i l it y unl e s s he i s und e ri m m i n en td an ge ro f s e r i o us p h y s ic a l inju r y . S ee§ 1 9 1 5 (g). Al f r e d ’ s mo t i o n t o p r o c e e dI FP i s DENI ED, a n dh i s a p p e a li s DI S M I S S ED as f rivol ou s pu rsuan tt o 5 T H C IR . R . 42. 2.