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. 08- 30198 Su m m ar y Cal endar
CA RL O U S T LEW I S Pl ai nt i f f

- Appe l l ant

v. R IC H A R D B RA Z Z E L , A c tin gW a r d e n U n io n P a r is h D e te n tio n C e n te r ; D O N N IE AD AMS , C a p t a i n a tU n i o n P a r i s h D e t e n t i o n C e n t e r ; JA ME S H A R R I S ; B OB BU CK LE Y, She r i f

f U ni o n Par i s h 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. 3: 07- C V

- 1227

B ef ore D AV IS, G A R Z A , an d P R A D O , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * C arl ou s T. L ew i s, L ou i si an a pri soner # 102 982 , m oves f or l eave to proc eed i n f orm a p a u p e ri s (IFP ) on ap pea lf ol l ow i n g t h e di sm i ssalas f rivol ou s and f

or fai l ur e t o s t a t e ac l a i m o f h i s 4 2 U. S
. C. § 1 9 8 3 c iv i lr i g h t s l a ws u i t
. Bymo v i ng f orI FP , Lew i s c hal l enges t he di st r i c tc our t ’ s deni alof I FP and c er t i f

i c at i on t hat th e a p p e a l is n o t t a k e n in g o o dfa ith
. Se e B augh v. T aylor , 117 F. 3d 197, 202

United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rc h 11, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 30198

2 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ); F ED . R . A PP . P
. 24(a)
. Th i s c ou rtm ay au t h ori ze L ew i s t o proceed IF P on a p p e a l if th e a p p e a l p re se n ts an o n friv o lou s iss u e . 2 8 U .S .C
. § 1 9 1 5 (a )(1);
s e eHo l m e s v . Har dy , 8 5 2 F .2 d 1 5 1 , 1 5 3 (5 t h C ir
. 1 9 8 8 ). T h e in q u ir y in t o L e w is ’s goodfait h “i s li m i t ed to 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 d th ere fore n ot f rivo l ou s). ’” Ho w ar d v
. Ki ng , 707 F. 2d 215, 220 (5 th C ir. 1 9 8 3 ) (cita tion om itted ). Lewi s c o nt e nds tha thi s c o m pl ai ntw as i m pr o pe r l y di s m i s s e d, a nd h e r e n e ws h i s c l a i m s t h a to f f i c i a l s a tt h e Un i o n P a r i s h De t e n t i o n Ce n t e r(UPDC) vi ol ated his E i gh t h A m en dm en tri gh t s w h en t h ey for ced him t o w ear show er shoes t o courtan d w h en t h ey den i ed hi m m edi cal t reat m en t
. H e does n otbri ef any argum entreg ar di ng t he cl ai m s t hathe w as f or c ed t o paypar tof

hi s m edi c al
c o s ts , th a t h is d u e p r o c e s s rig h ts w e r e v io la te dw h e n h e w a s p la c e din th e “h o le ,” th a t U P D C o ffic ia ls d is c r im in a te da g a in s t h im , o rth a t h e w a s im p r o p e r ly
a s s ig n e dato p b u n k
. A c c o r d in g ly , h e h a s a b a n d o n e dth o s e cla im s . S ee Y ohey v . Col l i ns , 98 5 F. 2d 22 2, 22 4- 25 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 99 3)
. Le w i s a ddit i o nall y ar gue s , f o rt he f i r s tt i m e o n a ppe al , t hatU PD C of f i c i al s a nd s t at e c o ur t s v i o l at e d hi s due p r o c e s s rig h ts w h e n th e yig n o r e dh is a d m in is tr a tiv e g r ie v a n c e a n dciv il
c o m p la in t. T h e s e n e w cla im s w ill n o t b e co n s id e r e d
. S eeS h a n k s v . A lli ed S ig n a l, Inc. , 1 6 9 F .3 d 9 8 8 , 9 9 3 n .6 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ); B u rch v. Coca- Cola Co. , 119 F. 3d 305, 3 1 9 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 7 ). T h e d istr i ctcourtdeter m i n ed that t h e E i gh t h A m en dm en tcl ai m s fai l ed b e c a u s e L e w is h a dn o t d e m o n s tr a te dth a t U P D C o ffi c i a l s w e r e d e lib e r a te ly i n di f ferent t o hi s s afet y or heal t h
. I tf ou n d that Lew i s’ s al l egatio n s am ou n t ed t o, atm os t , a c l ai m f ornegli genc e, w hi c h di d notgive r i set o ac ons t i t ut i onal vi ol ati on . Lew i s n ow assert s t h at h e i s en t i t l ed to redress f or negl i gen ce un der t h e E i gh t h A m en dm en t
. H e i s i n corr ect
. A l l egati on s c om pri si n g n egl i gen ce are in s u ffic ie n t to s ta te a c la im u n d e r th e E igh th A m e n d m e n t. S ee A d am es v. Perez , 3 3 1 F .3 d 5 0 8 , 5 1 4 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ); V arnado v
. Lynaugh , 9 2 0 F
. 2 d3 2 0 , 32 1 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ). L e w is a d d itio n a llyco n te n d s t h a t U P D C o ffic ia ls w e r e d e lib e r a te lyN o. 08- 30198

3 i ndif fe r e nti n fail i ng t o pr o vi de hi m w i t h sho e s fo rco ur t
. H o w e ve r , he b r i e fs no a r g u m e n t t h a t U P D C o ffic ia ls k n e w h e fa c e da s e r io u s r is ko f h a r m fr o m afa ll i f he w o r e s ho w e rs l i ppe r s t o co ur tb utw i l lf ul l y di s r e ga r de d t hatr i s k, a nd t he
c la im th e r e fo r e fa ils
. S ee Y oh ey , 9 8 5 F .2 da t 2 2 4 -2 5 ; seealso F arm er , 5 11 U
. S. at847. Lewi s f ur t he ra r gue s t hathe w as de ni e d m e di c alc ar e a f t e rhi s falla tt he
c o ur t ho us e . To t he e xt e ntt hatLe w i s r ai s e s anew c l ai m t hathe t hr o w n i nt o t he ho l e f o l l o w i ng hi s falla nd d e ni e d a ny m e di c al c ar e , i t s ho ul d no t be c o ns i de r e d. SeeSh anks , 1 69 F. 3da t9 93 n. 6. M o r e o ve r , t he cl ai m i s de fe at e d b y t he al l egat i ons of

Lew i s’ s c o m p l a i ntac know l edgi ng t hathe w as t aken t o the hos pi t al af t e rhi s fall
. To t he ex t e ntt hatL e w i s se e ks t o r e ne w hi s o r i gi nalc l ai m t hathe
w as den i ed ad equ ate m edi calcare w h en he w as den i ed p resc ri pti on m edi cat i on and chi r opr ac t orvi sit s, a v er y l iber al c ons t r uct i on of hi s appel l at e b r i ef, he has
n o ts h o w n a n ye r r o rin c o n n e c t io n w it h th e d is m is s a l o f t h e c la im . L e w is ’s al l egati on s s h ow onl y di sagreem en t w i t h t h e m edi calt reat m en the received , or, at w orst , neg l i gen ce, ei t h er of w h i ch i s i n suff

i ci en tt o give ri se t o a cl ai m f or d e lib e r a te in d iffe r e n c e . S ee Var nado , 920 F. 2d at321. L e w is h a s n o t d e m o n s tr a te dan o n fr iv o lo u s g r o u n dfo ra p p e a l. A c c o r d in g ly , h is IF P m o tio n is d e n ie d , a n dth e a p p e a l is d is m is s e d
. SeeB augh , 1 1 7 F .3 da t 2 0 2 ; 5 THC IR . R . 4 2 .2 . B o t h t h e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s d is m is s a l o f L e w is ’s l aw sui tan d thi s c ou rt ’ s di sm i ssalof t h e i n st an tapp eal coun t as “ st ri kes” un der 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (g). Se eAde pegb a v . Ham m o ns , 103 F
. 3d383 , 385

- 87 (5t h C i r. 1 9 9 6 ). L e w is is ca u tion e dth a t if h e a cc u m u la te s th re e str ik e s u n d e r § 1 9 1 5 (g), h e m a yn o t p r o c e e dI F P i n a n yc iv il a c tio n o ra p p e a l file dw h ile h e is i n carcer ated or detai n ed i n a n y faci l i t y u n l ess h e i s un der i m m i n en tdan ger of
s e r io u s p h y s ic a l inju r y . S ee§ 1 9 1 5 (g). IF P D E N IE D ; A P P E A L D IS M IS S E D ; 5 THC IR . R
. 4 2
. 2 ; S ANC T I ON W AR NI NG I S S UED
.