Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould 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. 09- 40262 Su m m ar yC al endar

J ED S TE W ART L I NEBERRY , Pl ai nt i f f

- Appe l l ant

v. UN I TE D S TATE S OF AM ERI CA; F EDERALBUREAU OF PRI SONS; HARLE Y LA PP I N, Di r e c t o ro f Bu r e a u o f

P r i s o n s ; F EDERALCORRE CTI ONAL IN S T IT U T IO N T E XA R KA N A , 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 or t h e E aster n D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 5: 08- C V

- 72

B ef ore JO N E S , C h i ef

Ju dg e, an d D AV IS an d W IE N E R , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * Je d St e w ar tL i ne be r r y, f e de r alpr i s o ne r#R102 96

- 07 8, i s a ppe ali ng t he d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d is m is s a l w ith p r eju d ic e o f h is cla im s , a r is in gd u r i n gh is i n carcer ati on at t h e F ederalC orrec t i on alIn st i t u t i on (FC I) in T exark an a, T exas, i n w h i c h h e s o u g h ti nj u n c t iv e r e l i e f a n dd a ma g e s u n d e rt h e F e d e r a lT o r tC l a i ms Act( FTC A) a nd B i vens v. S ix Un kn ow n Nam ed Agents of Narcot i cs , 403 U

. S. 388

United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 3, 20 10 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-40262 Document: 00511130779 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/03/2010N o. 09- 40262

2 ( 19 71 )

. Li ne be r r y al s o a ppe al s t he di s m i s s alw i t ho utpr ej udi c e o f c l ai m s a r i s i ng dur i ng hi s i nc ar c e r at i o n att he FCI , Se ag o vil l e , w hi c h wer e di s m i s s e d a s b e i ng du pl i cativ e o f

cl ai m s he rai sed i n a sui tpen di n g i n t h e N ort h ern D i st ri ctof T exas. Li n e b e r r yh a s n o tc h a l l e n g e dt h e di s m i s s a lo f hi s c l a i m s un d e rt h e F TC A f or fai l u re t o exh au sthi s ad m i n i st rat ive rem edi es. Th u s, he h as aba n don ed th o s e cla im s o n a p p e a l. S ee Hugh es v. Joh n son , 1 91 F. 3d6 07 , 6 13 ( 5t h Ci r. 1 9 9 9 ). L i n eberry com pl ai n s t h at he di d n otconsent t o t h e m att er bei n g ref erred t o the m agi st r at e j udge and t hatbas ed o n hi s obj ec t i on s f i l ed pur suantt o 2 8 U

. S. C. § 63 6(c ) , t he m ag i s t r at e j udg e l o s t all j ur i s di c t i o n t o condu ctany pro c ee di ngs i n hi s c as e. Thi s ar gum enti s f r ivol ous be c ause t he m agi st r at e j udge
o n ly m a d e “fi n d in g s o f fa ct a n dre co m m e n d a tion s” p u rs u a n t to § 6 3 6 (b )(1)(B ), andt he c o ns e nt o f t he pa r t i e s w as no tr e quir e d f o rt he di s t r i c tj udg e t o r e fe rt he
c as e t o a m agi st r at e j udge bec ause “ t he ul t i m at e dec i si on- m aki ng aut hor i t y w as reta i n ed bythe distri ct cou rt. ” Ja ck so n v. Ca in , 864 F

. 2d123 5, 1 2 4 2 (5t h C i r. 1 9 8 9 ). L i n eberry argues that t h e di st ri ctcourtha d p erson a lj u ri sdi ct i on over D i rect or La pp i n becau se t h ere w as an af f i rm ative lin k b et w een t h e al l eged constit u t i on aldep rivati on s and L ap pi n ’ s app rovalof un constit u t i on alpol i ci es or pl ans. I ti s notnec es sa r y t o de t em i ne if t he di st r i c tc our thad per so nal j u ri sdi ct i on over La pp i n becau se Lineberry’ s c on cl u si on alal l egati on s a re not
s upp o r t e d b y anys pe c i f i cfac t s s ho w i ng Lapp i n’ s pe r s o nali nvo lve m e nti n t he da i l y o pe r at i o n o f

t he pr i s o n o r t hat Lapp i n pe r s o nall y i m pl e m e nt e d ade f i c i e nt pol i cy res u l t i n g i n a con st i t u t i on alv i ol ati on . T h u s, the di st ri ctcourtdi d n oterr i n d et er m i ni ng al t er nat ively t hatLi neber r y fai l ed t o a l l ege a B i vens c la im
a g a in s t L a p p in

. S ee C ronn v. B uf f i ngt on , 1 5 0 F .3d 5 3 8 , 5 4 4 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 8 ). B ecau se t h e di st ri ctcourthel d that hi s ad m in istr ative rem edi es w ere
r ender ed unavai l abl e, Li neber r y i s ent i t l ed t o s ee k i nj unct ive r el i ef t o c hal l enge Case: 09-40262 Document: 00511130779 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/03/2010N o. 09- 40262

3 th e a lle g e d u n c o n s tit u tio n a l p o lic ie s a n dp r a c tic e s . S ee R ou rke v. T h ompson , 11 F .3d 4 7 , 4 9 (5 th C ir. 1 9 9 3 ). H ow ever, as di scussed bel ow , L i n eberry h as fai l ed to a r g u e fa c ts th a t s u p p o r t p la u s ib le co n s tit u tio n a lc la im s . Se eI n reKat r i na Canal , 4 9 5 F .3d 2 0 1 , 2 0 5 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 7 ). L i n eberryh a s n otal l egedan y speci f i c fact s s h ow i n g t h at th e al l eged
overcr ow ded an d un derst af fed c on di t i on s at th e T exark an a faci l i t y h ave p l aced h im a t r is kfo rs e r io u s h a r m o rth a t h e h a s s u ffe r e da n ys e r io u s h a r m to h is he al t h a nd s af

e t y. Li ne be r r y has no ta s s e r t e d t hathe has been involve d i n a f i gh t , i nj u red, or dev el oped a m edi calprobl em becau se of t h e overpopu l ati on of t h e T exark an a faci l i t y. H e ha s not assert ed fact s s h ow i n g th a t h e w a s den i ed
m e di c alc ar e fo ra sp e c i f i ci nj ur y o ri l l ne s s atT e xa r ka na. N o rha s he a l l e ge d a ny
s pe c i f i cfac t s s ho w i ng t hatt he Te xa r ka na pr i s o n o f f i c i al s a r e a w ar e of

t he presen ce o f a sb est os i n t h e faci l i t y t h at i s presently cau si n g a speci f i c r i sk of h a rm to L i n eb erry or an y o th er p ri son er. T h u s, L i n eb erryh a s n ot all eg ed fa cts show i n g t h at th ere i s an exc e ss ive ri sk that he w i l lsuf fer a s eri ou s harm be c aus e o f

t he pr i s o n po pul at i o n o rb e c ause of da nge r o us c o ndit i o ns t hatt he p r is o n o ffic ia ls w e r e a w a r e o f a n dfa ile dt o a d d r e s s . Se eFar m e rv . Br e nnan , 511 U

. S. 825, 832 ( 1994);Palm er v. Joh n son , 193 F. 3d 346, 352 ( 5t h C i r . 1999)

. N or h a s h e al l eg ed facts sh ow i n g de l ib era te i n d i ff ere n ce t o his m ed i ca l n ee d s . S ee Wi lson v. S ei t er , 5 0 1 U .S

. 2 9 4 , 2 9 7 (19 9 1 ). L in eberry argues f

or t h e f i rstt i m e on ap pea lt h at th e T exark an a pri son fac t or y, U ni c or , i s a s l ave c am p thatproduc es dan ger ous chro m i um , a chem i c al
c a u s in gca n c e ra n dlu n gd is e a s e re s u ltin gin p r e m a tu r e d e a th s . T h e co u r t w ill
n o tc o n s id e ran e w lyra is e dfa c tu a l cla im o n a p p e a l. S t ew artG lass & Mi rror, I nc . v . U

. S. Aut o G las s D i s c o untCe nt e rs , I nc . , 2 0 0 F

. 3d307 , 316

- 17 (5t h C i r. 2 0 0 0 ). N o rha s Li ne be r r y all e ge d s pe c i f i cfac t s s ho w i n g t hathi s i m pr i s o nm e nt
w i t h i l l egal al i en s and gan g m em bers pl aces hi m a t an un n ecess ary ri sk of seri ou s i nj u ry or t h at pri son of f icia ls are aw are of

such a ri sk. Th u s, he fai l ed Case: 09-40262 Document: 00511130779 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/03/2010N o. 09- 40262

4 to a lle g e acla im fo rfa ilu r e to p r o te c t. S ee F arm er , 511 U

. S. at832- 33, 837. L i n eberry argues f

or t h e f i rst t i m e i n h i s repl y bri ef t h at T exark an a h ou ses over 200 m en t al l y i l lpri soners, w h o h ave on l y sporad i c m on i t ori n g an d that t h ese pri soners som et i m es assaul tot h er i n m ates w i t h ou tcause. Th i s c ou rtw i l lnot
c o n s id e ra n is s u e ra is e dfo rth e fir s t t im e in are p lyb r ie f. S ee Uni t e d S t at e s v. Jackson , 4 2 6 F .3d 3 0 1 , 3 0 4 n .2 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). L in e b e r r ym a k e s aco n c lu s io n a l a r g u m e n t t h a t “o n e o f th e d e fe n d a n ts is guil t y o f

r e t ali at i o n a ga i ns thi m for f i l i ng t he c o m pl ai nt s a ga i ns tt he defenda n t s. ” H e does not i den t i f y t h e of f i cer w h o al l eged l y m a d e the threats. F u rt h er, t h ere i s no al l ega tion tha tan of f i cer com m i t t ed a ret al i ator y actas a resul tof

L i n eberry’ s at t em pt t o f i l e hi s gri evan ces. L i n eberry’ s argum en t s are t oo ge ner aland c onc l usi onalt o s how t hathe had s t at ed a val i d c ons t i t ut i onal
c la im o f r e ta lia tio n . S eeB ib b s v . Ea rly , 5 4 1 F .3d 2 6 7 , 2 7 0 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 8 ). Li ne be r r y’ s a r gum e ntt hathe i s fo r c e d i nt o s e rvit ude i n v i o l at i o n o f t he 13th a nd 1 5t h Am e ndm e nt s i s a l s o f r ivo l o us . The Fif

t e e nt h Am e ndm e nt ad dresses voti n g ri gh t s and ha s no ap p li ca ti on t o a cl ai m of i n vol u n t ary
s e rvit ude

. Li ne be r r y ac kno w l e dg e s t hathe i s pa i d f o rhi s w o r k a tt he pr i s o n, and he pr ovi des no evi denc e of a r eali st i c t hre at of c om pul si on, an el em entof an in v o lu n ta r ys e rv itu d e cla im

. S eeCh a n n erv. Ha ll , 1 1 2 F .3d 214 , 218 ( 5th C i r. 1 9 9 7 ). T h e fa c t t h a t h e m a ylo s e g o o d -tim e cr e d its u n d e rp r is o n re g u la tio n s if h e ref u ses to w ork d oe s n ot su p p ort a cl a i m th a t L i n eb erry i s su bj ect to in v o lu n ta r ys e rv itu d e in v io la tio n o f th e T h ir te e n th A m e n d m e n t. SeeW at s on v. G raves , 909 F. 2d 1549, 1552- 53 ( 5t h C i r . 1990) ; 28 C. F. R

. §§ 541. 13, 545. 20. Li neber r y ar gues thatt he B ure au of P ri son ( B O P) poli c y pr ec l udi ng an i nm at e c onvi c t ed o f

be i ng a f

el on i n pos se ssion o f a f i r ear m f

r om c om pl et i ng a dru g program tha tw ou l d m ak e h i m eli gibl e forea rni n g a on e- year redu ct i on of h i s s en t en ce overr i des t h e C on st i t u t i on . A tt h e t i m e of L i n eberry’ s c on vi ct i on andpr e s e nt l y, t he a ppli c ab l e r e gul at i o n e xc l ude d i nm at e s c o nvi c t e d o f b e i ng fe lo n s in p o s s e s s io n fr o m e a r lyre le a s e e lig ib ilityb a s e do n t h e irp a r tic ip a tio n in Case: 09-40262 Document: 00511130779 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/03/2010N o. 09- 40262

5 ad r u gp r o g r a m . S ee Hadleyv. Chapm an , 58 7 F. 3d 27 3- 83 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 9)

. The court h as rej ect ed argu m en t s that the regu l ati on vi ol ated t h e E qu alP rot ect i on
o rD u e P r o c e s s C la u s e s . I d. a t280

- 81. B ecau se Lineberry w as sentenced f or b e in gafe lo n in p o s s e s s io n o f afir e a r m in J u ly2 0 0 3 , h e w a s in e lig ib le fo re a r ly
r e l e as e und e rt he ru l e in e f fe c ta tt he t i m e o f

hi s c o nvi c t i o n a nd s e nt e nc e , a nd h e re m a in s in e lig ib le fo r e a r ly r e le a s e u n d e rth e d r u gp r o g r a m . Se ei d. at283. L in e b e r ryco m p la i n s a b o u tt h e d i s c i p l i n a r ya c t i o n t a k e n a g a i n s t h im w h ile h e w a s i n c a r c e r a t e da tS e a g o v i l l e a n da b o u to t h e rc o n d i t i o n s a tt h a tfa c i l i t y . H e does n otden y t h at h e rais ed t h ese cl ai m s i n a sui tt h at he f i l ed i n t h e N ort h ern D i s t r i c to f

T e x a s . T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r td i dn o te r ri n d i s mi s s i n gt h e s e c l a i ms
w i t h ou tprej u di ce because t h i s c ou rth as held t h at iti s “ m al i ci ou s” f or a pri soner pr o c e e di ng i n f

o r m a pa upe r i s (I FP) t o f i l e al awsuitt h at du pl i c at e s t he
a lle g a tio n s o f a n o th e rp e n d in gfe d e r a l a c tio n b yt h e s a m e p la in tiff

. S ee Pi t t m an
v. Moore , 9 8 0 F .2d 9 9 4 , 9 9 5 (5t h C ir.19 9 3 ). L in e b e r r y ’ s a p p e a l is w ith o u t a r g u a b le m e r it a n dis th u s fr iv o l o u s . S ee Ho w ar d v

. Ki ng , 7 0 7 F .2 d 2 1 5 , 2 1 9 -2 0 (5 th C ir .1 9 8 3 ). B e c a u s e th e a p p e a l is fr iv o lo u s , it is d is m is s e d

. S ee5 T H C IR
. R

. 42. 2. B ased on t h e di sm i ssalof t w o of L in e b e r r y ’ s p r io ra p p e a ls , th e co u r t h a s re c e n tlyd e te r m in e dth a t L in e b e r r yis b a r r e dfr o m p r o c e e d in gIF P in a n yciv 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 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (g); Li ne be r r yv . St over , N o. 0 9- 4 0 5 2 2 (5t h C ir. N o v . 1 7 , 2 0 0 9 ); L i n eberr y v. Un i t ed S t ate s , N o. 0 9- 103 60 ( 5th C i r. N ov. 17, 200 9)

. Lineberry rem ai n s s u bj ectt o t h e § 1915 ( g) bar. AP P EA L DI S M I S S ED

. Case: 09-40262 Document: 00511130779 Page: 5 Date Filed: 06/03/2010