Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this o pinion should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt exc ept under the limite d circumstances set forthin5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 50684 Su m m ar yC al endar

P E R R YH E M P H IL L , Pl ai nt i f f

- Appe l l ant v. S HER I F F GR EG HAMI L T ON, D efen da n t
- A pp el l ee

A pp eal s f

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e W est ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 1: 08- C V

- 769

B ef ore D E M O S S , P R A D O , an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * P e r r yH e m p h il l, T e x a s p r is o n e r#1 4 1 7 8 3 2 , a p p e a l s th e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s order di sm i ssi n g h i s 42 U
. S

. C

. § 19 83 com pl ai n tas f rivol ou s. H em ph i l lal l eged t hathi s c o ns t i t ut i on alr i ght s w e r e v i o l at e d b e c aus e he w as i nj ur e d when he
s li p p ed a n d fel l on ra i n w a ter w h i l e he w a s a p retrial d eta i n ee i n th e T r a v is C ount y C or r ec t i onalC om pl ex. H em phi l largues thatt he di st r i c tc our ter r ed by di s m i s s i ng h i s c o m pl ai ntw i t ho utg ivi ng hi m a n o ppo r t uni t y t o r e m e dya ny de fe c t s i n hi s pl e ad i ngs . H e f ur t he ra r gue s thatt he fac t s e s t ab l i s h t hatt he gua r ds w e r e de l ibe r at e l y i ndi f fe r e nt t o t he haz ar do us c o ndi t i o ns i n t he j ai la nd United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 15, 2 010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-50684 Document: 00511142393 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/15/2010N o. 09- 50684

2 t hat , as an em pl oye r , Sheri f f H am i l t on and t he Travi s C ount y Corr ec t i onal C om pl ex are l i able f

or t h e gu ards’act i on s. T h e rec ord be fore th e d i stri c t cou rt, i n cl u d i n g th e m ore de fi n i te statem en t, sugge st ed t hatH em phi l lh ad pl eade d h i s bes tcas e and t hatl eave to am end w as
n otnecessary becau se t h e fact s un derl yi n g t h e com pl ai n tdi d n otri se t o t h e l evel
o f a v ia b le co n s tit u tio n a l cla im
. S ee B r e w s t e rv. D r e t ke , 5 8 7 F
. 3 d 7 6 4 , 76 8 ( 5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ), pet i t i on f

or c ert
. f

i l ed , (J a n . 2 1 , 2 0 1 0 ) (N o . 0 9 -9 9 5 0 ); seealso Jones v. G reni nger , 1 8 8 F .3 d 3 2 2 , 3 2 6 -2 7 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). H em ph i l l h as n ot i den t i f i ed an expl i ci t or de fact o j ai lpol i cy or rest ri ct i on th a t resu l ted i n a d ep ri va ti on of h i s con sti tu ti on a l ri gh ts. SeeSh e pher d v. D a lla s Co u n ty , 5 91 F. 3d4 45 , 4 52 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 9)

. H i s c l ai m s a ga i ns tt he defend ant s i n t he i rc ap ac i t y as e m pl o ye r s o f t he g uar ds a r e no tc o gni z abl e. Esta te of D a v is v
. C ity of N

. R ich la n dHills , 4 0 6 F .3 d 3 7 5 , 3 8 1 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). M o r e o ve r , t he fac t s all e ge d b y H e m phi l l , a tm o s t , c o ns t i t ut e ne gl i ge nc e o n t he p a r t o f th e g u a r d s . Ha r ev . C ity of Co r in th , MS , 7 4 F .3d 6 3 3 , 6 3 9 (5 th C ir. 1 9 9 6 ). Bec au se ne gl i ge nc e do e s no tg ive r i s e t o a c o ns t i t ut i o nalv i o l at i o n, a nd a supervi so rm ay notbe hel d l i abl e undert heor i es of vi c ar i ous orr esp on deat
s upe r i or l i abi l i t y, t he di s t r i c tc o ur tdi d no ta bus e i t s di s c r e t i o n b y di s m i s s i ng H e m p h ill’ s c o m p la in t. D a n i e ls v . Wi l l i a ms , 4 7 4 U .S . 3 2 7 , 3 3 2 -3 3 6 (1 9 8 6 ); Esta te
of D a v is , 406 F. 3d at381. Af t e rt he di s t r i c tc o ur te nt e r e d f i nalj udg m e nt , H e m phi l lm ad e a s e c o nd
m o t i o n t o am e nd, s e e ki ng l e av e t o ad d a ne gl i ge nc e c l ai m unde r s t at e l aw. The di st r i c tc our tdeni ed H em phi l l ’ s m ot i on. To sho w t hatt he di st r i c tc our t ’ s deni al
w as an abu se of

di scr et i on , H em ph i l lm u st “ ‘ cl earl y est abli sh[] t h at he coul d n ot
r e a s o n a b ly h a v e r a is e d [h is n e w c la im ] p r io rto th e tr ia l c o u r t ’s m e r it s r u li n g .’” V i el m a v . E u reka Co. , 218 F. 3d 458, 468- 69 ( 5t h C i r . 2000) ( quot i ng B r i ddl ev. S co tt , 63 F. 3d 364, 380 ( 5t h C i r . 1995) )

. H em phi l lh as n otm ade suc h a s how i ng. A c c or di ngl y, t he di st r i c tc our tdi d notabus e i t s di sc r et i on i n denyi ng hi m l eave to m a k e a p o s t-ju d g m e n t a m e n d m e n t. S ee id

. Case: 09-50684 Document: 00511142393 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/15/2010N o. 09- 50684

3 H em phi l li s advi se d t hatthe di st r i c tc our t ’ s di sm i ss alof hi s c om pl ai ntas fr iv o lo u s co u n ts a s a s tr ik e fo r p u r p o s e s o f 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (g). SeeAd e peg ba v. Ham m o ns , 1 03 F. 3d3 83 , 3 87 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 99 6)

. H e m phi l lp rev i o us l y r e c e ive d a
s tr ik e u n d e r§ 1 9 1 5
. S e eHe mp h i l lv . Wi l l i a ms , N o . 1 :0 0 -C V -1 8 6 (W .D
. T e x . J u ly 12, 2000)

. H e m p h ill is a d v is e d t h a t h e h a s n o w a c c u m u la te d tw o s tr ik e s , a n d if he a c c um ul at e s a t hi r d s t r i ke , he w i l lno l o nge rb e a l l o w e d t o pr o c e e d I FP i n a ny ci vilaction or a p p ea lf i l ed w h i l e h e is d eta i n ed or i n ca rcera ted i n an y facil i ty
u n le s s 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 . S ee§ 1 9 1 5 (g). AF F I RMED; S ANC T I ON WARNI NG I S S UED
. Case: 09-50684 Document: 00511142393 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/15/2010