United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-31039

Titus Lee West, 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Darian Thompson, Assistant Warden, in their Individual Capacities; 

Richard Hunt, Former Colonel, in their Individual Capacities, 

Defendants—Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:19-CV-332

Before Willett, Ho, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Titus Lee West, Louisiana prisoner # 485180, moves for leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

civil rights complaint against Darian Thompson and Richard Hunt, both of 

whom at the time of the alleged incident were employed by the Louisiana 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 29, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-31039 Document: 00515726496 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/29/2021
No. 19-31039

2

Department of Corrections at the Louisiana State Penitentiary in Angola. 

West asserted that the defendants violated the Eighth Amendment by 

adopting a policy of double celling inmates who were confined in 

administrative segregation on protective custody. He further alleged that 

excessive force was used against him by another correctional officer when he 

refused to return to his cell due to threats made by his cellmate. The district 

court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Thompson and 

dismissed West’s claims against Hunt for failure to effect timely service. 

By moving to proceed IFP, West challenges the certification that his 

appeal is not in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 

1997). He must show that his “appeal involves ‘legal points arguable on their 

merits (and therefore not frivolous).’” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 

(5th Cir. 1983) (citation omitted). We may dismiss the appeal “when it is 

apparent that an appeal would be meritless.” See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 

& n.24; see 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 

“Summary judgment is proper if the pleadings and evidence show 

there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to 

judgment as a matter of law.” Hernandez v. Yellow Transp., Inc., 670 F.3d 

644, 650 (5th Cir. 2012); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The nonmovant 

“cannot defeat summary judgment with conclusory allegations, 

unsubstantiated assertions, or only a scintilla of evidence.” Hathaway v. 

Bazany, 507 F.3d 312, 319 (5th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks and 

citations omitted).

West does not challenge the district court’s determination that he 

failed to allege direct personal involvement on the part of Thompson with 

regard to the use of force. Thus, any challenge is now deemed abandoned. 

See Raj v. La. State Univ., 714 F.3d 322, 327 (5th Cir. 2013); Brinkmann v. 

Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1993). 

Case: 19-31039 Document: 00515726496 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/29/2021
No. 19-31039

3

Although West disputes Thompson’s identification of Directive No. 09.046 

as the policy utilized to implement the double celling of inmates confined in 

administrative segregation on protective custody, he fails to demonstrate a 

nonfrivolous issue for appeal with respect to the district court’s 

determination that the policy was not unconstitutional. See Rhodes v. 

Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 348-49 (1981); Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 542 

(1979). Thus, he also fails to demonstrate a nonfrivolous issue for appeal with 

respect to the grant of summary judgment in favor of Thompson. See Porter 

v. Epps, 659 F.3d 440, 446 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Finally, West does not challenge the district court’s dismissal of his 

claims against Hunt for failure to effect timely service. Thus, these claims 

are deemed abandoned. See Raj, 714 F.3d at 327; Brinkmann, 813 F.2d at 748. 

Because West identifies no nonfrivolous issue for appeal, his IFP motion is 

DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d 

at 202 & n.24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 

Case: 19-31039 Document: 00515726496 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/29/2021