* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-11333

Summary Calendar

 

DANTE D’AGOSTINO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DARWIN D. SANDERS ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:97-CV-360

- - - - - - - - - -

June 12, 1998

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Dante D’Agostino, Texas state prisoner # 688309, has

appealed the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights

action against several officials, officers, and employees of the

Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division

(TDCJ). We AFFIRM.

In his complaint, D’Agostino alleged claims against one

group of defendants based on events which allegedly occurred when
No. 97-11333

-2-

he was a patient at TDCJ’s John T. Montford Psychiatric Hospital

Unit (Montford). D’Agostino’s other claims are based on events

which allegedly occurred while he was participating in TDCJ’s

Program for Aggressive Mentally Ill Offenders (PAMIO), located in

Clements Unit. These TDCJ units are located in different

divisions of the United States District Court for the Northern

District of Texas. 

D’Agostino’s principal contention is that he has a serious

medical need for intensive one-on-one psychiatric or

psychological counseling, which has been denied him while he has

been a PAMIO participant. The district court did not err by

dismissing these claims as frivolous, because they are based

merely on D’Agostino’s disagreement with members of the PAMIO

medical staff concerning the type of treatment which he should

receive. See Banuelos v. McFarland, 41 F.3d 232, 235 (5th Cir.

1995). The district court did not abuse its discretion by

severing D’Agostino’s claims against the Montford defendants and

dismissing them without prejudice, because they are similarly

frivolous.

D’Agostino complains that the district court did not

specifically advert to his claims against Dr. Revell and

“Dr. John Doe,” whom he now knows to be a Dr. Hurley. Since

these claims also are based on events which allegedly occurred

while D’Agostino was at Montford, the district court must have

intended to sever them and dismiss them without prejudice. 
No. 97-11333

-3-

D’Agostino is not entitled to relief relative to them, however,

because they are frivolous as Eighth Amendment claims. 

D’Agostino has not briefed any claim of improper or

inadequate medical treatment for his back, which allegedly may

have occurred since he has been at Clements Unit. Thus, he has

abandoned any such appellate point. See Al-Ra’id v. Ingle, 69

F.3d 28, 33 (5th Cir. 1995). 

D’Agostino contends that the district court erred by

dismissing his claims against Warden Sanders of Clements Unit,

for failing to correct the violations of his rights by unit

personnel. This lacks merit because, as stated ante, the

district court did not err by dismissing D’Agostino’s claims

against the other Clements defendants as frivolous. 

D’Agostino asserts that the district court should have

preliminarily enjoined a new TDCJ policy reducing the number of

items of legal materials which an inmate (who cannot go to the

law library in person) can request. As the district court held,

D’Agostino is not entitled to relief relative to this policy

because he failed to allege facts which show that it has

prejudiced him in regard to any of his pending legal actions. 

See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-55 (1996). Furthermore,

the dismissal of the action rendered moot his request for a

preliminary injunction. See Cypress Barn, Inc. v. Western Elec.

Co., 812 F.2d 1363, 1364 (11th Cir. 1987).

D’Agostino has moved for a stay of the proceedings of this
No. 97-11333

-4-

appeal and of his other pending federal appeals. He also has

moved for other relief in the nature of mandamus, which “is an

extraordinary remedy that should be granted only in the clearest

and most compelling cases.” In re Willy, 831 F.2d 545, 549 (5th

Cir. 1987). Because D’Agostino has not shown that he is entitled

to such relief, his motions are DENIED. 

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED.