United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-40255

Summary Calendar

____________

Anthony Prescott, 

Plaintiff—Appellant, 

versus

K. Johnson, Kitchen Manager, Gurney Unit; Tony A. Dean, Officer, 

Coffield Unit; Stuart Calhoun, Warden, Gurney Unit; Earnest 

Navarrete, Assistant Warden, Coffield Unit; Cabrea, Sergeant, 

Gurney Unit; Jane Doe; Donald Lee; Christal Meador; 

Funai, formerly known as Funais; Michael Britt; Steven 

Farris; Danny Jackson; Tony Dew; Lowrey R. Davis; 

Dennis Nash; Author Thomas; Gaye Karriker, Law 

Librarian, Coffield Unit, 

Defendants—Appellees. 

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:18-CV-577

______________________________

Before Smith, Southwick, and Graves, Circuit Judges. 

Per Curiam:*

_____________________

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

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 30, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-40255 Document: 00516768301 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/30/2023
No. 22-40255

2

Texas inmate Anthony Prescott appeals the dismissal, at the screening 

phase, of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil action against various employees of the 

Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Prescott contends that the 

defendants violated his rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and 

Fourteenth Amendments, as well as the Americans with Disabilities Act

(“ADA”) and the Rehabilitation Act. Further, Prescott contends the 

defendants conspired to violate his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 

1986. Most of Prescott’s claims stem from his allegation that the defendants 

were either complicit in, or deliberately indifferent to, the contamination or 

poisoning of his prison meals, which he asserts was in retaliation for his suing 

them under Section 1983. Prescott seeks official-capacity damages against 

the defendants, punitive damages in relation to his ADA claim, and injunctive 

relief.

The district court dismissed Prescott’s claims as either frivolous or 

for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A & 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The 

court concluded that the Eleventh Amendment barred Prescott’s claim for 

official-capacity damages and that punitive damages were not available under 

Title II of the ADA. The district court also denied an injunction because 

Prescott did not prevail on the merits of his claims. 

Prescott fails to show error under our de novo standard of review for a 

district court’s dismissal of a complaint as frivolous or for failure to state a

claim. See Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373 (5th Cir. 2005). He fails to 

address or identify error in many of the court’s findings. Thus, it “is the 

same as if he had not appealed that judgment.” Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. 

Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Prescott’s complaint 

otherwise contains insufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a 

plausible claim for relief or to draw a reasonable inference that the defendants 

are liable for the alleged misconduct. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 

(2009). The district court properly dismissed the civil action.

Case: 22-40255 Document: 00516768301 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/30/2023
No. 22-40255

3

Lastly, because Prescott has apparently been released from Texas 

state custody, his appeal of the denial of injunctive relief is moot. See Herman 

v. Holiday, 238 F.3d 660, 665 (5th Cir. 2001).

AFFIRMED.

Case: 22-40255 Document: 00516768301 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/30/2023