Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinion should not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 20354 Su m m ar y Cal endar

DA RRYL W BELL P l a i n tiff - A p p ell a n t v. BRAD L I VI NGS T ON; R I CKT HAL ER ; B EN RA I M ER ; UNIVE RS I T YOF T EXAS T EC H CO RR EC T I ONS MANAG ER ; T EXAS DE P AR T M ENT OF CR I M I NALJ US T I CE DI RE CT OR OFS T AT E CLAS S I F I CA T I ON D efen da n t s - A pp el l ees

A p p ea l s f

rom the U n i tedS tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or t h e Sou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 4: 08- C V

- 1286

B ef ore H IG G IN B O T H A M , C L E M E N T , an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R IA M: * D a rry lW
. B e ll, T e x a s p ri son er #61 1 5 8 3 , m ov es for au th oriza ti on to p r o c e e din fo r m ap a u p e r is (“ I F P ” ) o n a p p e a l. T h e d is t r ic tc o u r td is m is s e dB e ll ’s S ect i on 1 983 com pl ai n ta n d den i ed h i m leave to proceed I F P becau se he h ad , on t hr e e o r m o r e pr i o r o c c as i o ns , pur s ue d f r ivo l o us a c t i o ns t hatw e r e di s m i s s e d a nd h e h a dfa i l e dt o e s t a b l i s h i m m i n e n td a n g e r . W e AF FI RM
. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December

17, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 20354

2 B e ll h a s file d n u m e r o u s c la im s in U .S . D is tr ic t C o u r t, a s s u m m a r iz e din th e d i stri ct co u rt’ s op i n i on . U n d er th e P ri son L i ti ga ti on R eform A ct, an i n m a te such as B el lw h o ha s t h ree “s t ri kes” becau se of p ri or f rivol ou s f

i l i n gs m u stei t h er pa y t h e f

i l i n g fee f

or n ew l i t i gati on or dem on st rat e t h at he i s i n i m m i n en tdan ger o f s e r io u s p h y s ic a l i nj u r y . 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (g). T h e u n d e r ly in gs u it, file din A pri l200 8, b rin g s clai m s un der S ect i on 198 3 f or B el l ’ s bei n g pu tat ri sk of “i m m ed i a te seriou s p h ys i ca linj u ryb y re p ea ted l y a l l ow i n g w ellk n ow n viol en t,
a g g r e s s iv e , a n db ia s [e d ] b la c kh e te r o s e x u a l e n e m ie s to p h y s ic a lly a n ds e x u a lly abu se hi m . ” H e seeks t o rec eive a dif ferent c l assif

i cat i on an d b e m o v e d t o a d i ff ere n t prison u n i t. B ell ’ s co m p la in t r eco u n ts a ser i es o f a l l eg ed civilri gh ts vi ol a ti on s by num er ous pr i so n em pl oye es , w hi c h re sul t ed i n hi m s uf fer i ng a broken j aw , st ap h i n fect i on , broken vert ebrae an d other m edi calcondit i on s. Th e di st ri c tc our tpr ope r l y f ound t hat“i m m i nentdanger” i s t o b e d e te r m in e da s o f th e tim e le a v e to s u e o rto a p p e a l is s o u g h t. B a n o s v . O ’G u in , 1 4 4 F .3 d8 8 3 , 8 8 4 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 )

. B e ll’ s co m p la in t w a s “p r im a r ilya b o u t h is cl a ssif i ca ti on at th e C l em en ts U n i t, w h ere h e rep o r te d l y h a s be en ex p ose dto po t e nt i alha r m b y ga ng m e m be r s w ho ha ve a s s ault e d hi m i n t he pa s t
. ” The
c o ur tf o und t hat t he s uitc o nc e r ne d t he “ c o ndit i o ns o f hi s c o nf

i ne m e nt” a nd h e h a dn o te s t a b l i s h e dt h a t h e w a s i n i mmi n e n t d a n g e r o f s e r i o u s p h y s i c a lh a r m. Th e di st r i c tc our tal sodet er m i ned tha t m a n y o f t hes e s am e c l ai m s had b e e n b r o u g h t e a r lie rin th e N o r th e r n D is tr ic t o f T e x a s , a n dd is m is s e d
. S eeB ell
v. L i vi ngst on , 200 8 W L 465 260 ( N
. D
. T ex. F eb. 21, 200 8)

. T h e courtconcl u ded t hat Bell f

i l e d t he c ur r e nt s ui t i n t he So ut he r n D i s t r i c t “ i n o r de r t o avoi d the proper f orum , w h i ch i s t h e N ort h ern D i st ri ct of T exas, A m ari l l o D ivi si on , w h ere t h e C l em en t s U n i ti s l ocat ed, ” an d that B el lso u g h t t o avoi d the bar aga i n st fu r th e rfi l i n g s b ycr e a tiv e p le a d in g , w h ic h is p r o h ib ite d
. Patt on v. Jef f ers on Corr. C t r. , 1 3 6 F .3 d4 5 8 , 4 6 4 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ).N o. 08- 20354

3 Fi nal l y, t he di stri ct co urtf ound t hatt he def

endant s had no per so nal i n volvem en t w i t h t h e al l eged i n ci den t s an d t h ere w as n o cau sa l con n ect i on bet w ee n t he c l ai m s and a poli c y e nf or c ed byt he s uper vi so r y o f f i c i al s l i st ed as de fe nda nt s . The r e f

o r e , no l i ab i l i t y c o ul d b e i m po s e d. F or al lt h ese r eason s, t h e di st ri ctcourtden i ed B el l ’ s m o tion to proceed IFP
. W e exam i n e t h e val i di t y of t h e deter m i n ati on s. The i s s ue unde r Se c t i o n 19 15 ( g) s o l e l y i nvo lve s w he t he r Bel l m us tpa y t he
n e c e s s a r yfe e b e fo r e filin go rw h e th e rh e m a yw a it u n til la te rto p a y . A n d r e ws v. Cervantes , 4 93 F. 3d1 04 7, 105 5 ( 9t h C i r . 200 7)

. Bel ldo e s no tdi s put e t hathe h as f i l e d t hr e e o rm o r e pr e vi o us l awsuit s t hatw e r e di s m i s s e d a s f r ivol ou s; h o w e v e r , h e a s s e r ts th a t h e is in im m in e n t d a n g e ro f s e r io u s p h y s ic a l inju r y . W e exam i n e w h et h er t h e com pl ai n tfai rly “a ll eges i m m i n en tdan ger of seriou s p h ys i ca li nj u ry . ” B row n v. Joh n son , 387 F
. 3 d 1 3 4 4, 135 0 ( 11th C i r. 20 04 )

. The di s t r i c tc o u rti nt e r pr e t e d Be l l ’ s c o m pl ai nta s pr i m ar i l y be i ng o ne aboutc l as sif

i c at i on, ar t f

ul l y c as tas a c l ai m of i m m i nent dangert o a voi d t he bar t hathas be e n r ai s e d t o hi s r e pe at e d f i l i ngs . As n o t e d, t he r e w e r e o t he rr e as o ns fo rth e d is m is s a l. W e fin dth e m o s t s t r a i g h tfo r w a r da p p r o a c h to a n a ly z e th is ap pe ali s t o l o o k a tonly o ne of t ho s e gr o unds
. Thi s i s b e c aus e w e m aya f f i r m t he d is tr ic t co u r t on a n yg r o u n dth a t is s u p p o r te db yth e re c o r d
. S eeD a v is v
. S co tt , 1 5 7 F .3 d1 0 0 3 , 1 0 0 5 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). E ven i f t h e com pl ai n tpasses t h e i m m i n en tdan ger requi rem en t , i tm u st
s till s ta te acla im u p o n w h ic h re lie f m a yb e g r a n te d
. S ee Carson v. Pol ley , 689 F
. 2d 562 , 586 ( 5th C i r. 198 2) (t o proceed I F P on ap pea lpri soner m u st d e m o n str a te fin a n cia l eligib il itya s w e lla s a n o n friv o lou s iss u e fora p p e a l). B el l ’ s c om pl ai ntal l ege s vi ol at i ons of t he E i ght h A m endm entand th e E qual P rot ect i o n C l au se. H e cl ai m s t h at pri son of f i ci al s fai l ed to protec thi m f rom
r e p e a te ds e x u a l a n dp h y s ic a l a s s a u lts a n dd e n ie dh im m e d ic a l ca r e .N o. 08- 20354

4 B el l ’ s l aw suit i s agai nsts uper vi so r y o f f i c i al s. A supervi so rm ay notbe h e ldli a b le fo r a civ ilrig h ts v iola tion u n d e r a n yth e o ryof res pon d eatsuperi oror
v ic a r io u s lia b i l i ty
. Mon el lv. New Y ork C i ty D ep’

tof S oc. S ervs . , 436 U
. S. 658, 691 ( 1978)

. To hol d s uper vi so r y o f f i c i al s l i abl e, B el lm ustdem ons t r at e e i t her( 1) t he s uper vi so rw as per so nal l y i nvolved i n t he c on sti tu ti onaldepr ivat i on o r( 2) t h ere i s “ a s uf

f i c i e ntc aus alc o nne c t i o n b e t w e e n t he s upe r vi s o r ’ s w r o ngf ul
con d u ct a n d th e con sti tu ti on a lviol a ti on . ” T h o mp k in s v . B elt , 828 F. 2d 298, 304 ( 5th C i r. 198 7)

. W i t h ou tpersona lparti ci pa t i on i n an of fen sive act , sup ervi sory l i abi l i ty w i l le xi stonly if t he s upervi so ri m pl em ent s a poli c y “ so def i c i entt hat t h e pol i cy ‘i t sel f

i s a r epu di ati on of

const i t u t i on alri gh t s’an d i s ‘t h e m ovi n g f orce of th e con sti tu ti on a lviol a ti on . ’” I d. at304 ( quot i ng G ran d st aff v. C i ty of

B orger , 7 6 7 F .2 d1 6 1 , 1 6 9 , 1 7 0 (5 th C ir . 1 9 8 5 )). The pl e ad i ngs do no tde m on st rat e t hatt he na m e d d e fe nda nt s ha d a ny pe r s o nali nvo lve m e ntw i t h t he al l e ga t i o ns B e l lra i s e s . Fur t he r , hi s a l l e ga t i o ns do n otshow a suf

f i ci en tcausal conn ect i on be tw e en hi s c l ai m s and a pol i cy en forcedbythe l i stedoff i ci a l s. T h e d i stri ct cou rt a p p l i ed th i s l eg a lan a l ys i s to B el l ’ s c l ai m s and f

ou n d them def

i ci en t
. So do w e. B e ll’ s m o tio n fo r th e a p p o in tm e n t o f c o u n s e l fo r p u r p o s e s o f th is a p p e a l is d e n ie da s is h is m o tio n fo rate m p o r a r yre s tr a in in go r d e ra n d/o rinju n c tio n . W e A F F IR M the dism i ssa l of B ell ’ s com p l a i n t since h e h a s fa i l ed to state
a c l ai m upo n whi c h r e l i e f m ayb e g r ant e d.