IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-40644

Summary Calendar

JACKIE LEE BOYD,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

CAROL MONROE; LANA BRUNETT; GWENDOLYN FULLER; SARAH 

COOK; CHAD MOORE,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:17-CV-649

Before JOLLY, COSTA, and HO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jackie Lee Boyd, Texas prisoner # 1263639, appeals the district court’s 

dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil suit for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief could be granted. In his complaint, Boyd alleged that the 

defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs because 

they refused to escort him to the infirmary on several occasions to receive his 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 7, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-40644 Document: 00514987582 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/07/2019
No. 18-40644

2

anti-depression medications and, as a result, he had suicidal thoughts and 

tried to hang himself. Boyd’s motions to supplement his brief and to place his 

brief under seal are GRANTED.

We review the dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim de 

novo. Rogers v. Boatright, 709 F.3d 403, 407 (5th Cir. 2013). Boyd does not 

challenge the district court’s determination that the defendants could not be 

liable under the doctrine of vicarious liability or respondeat superior. 

Accordingly, Boyd has abandoned his claims to the extent they rely on the 

theory of vicarious liability. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff 

Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

Regarding his deliberate indifference claims, Boyd does not allege facts 

that establish that prison officials “refused to treat him, ignored his 

complaints, intentionally treated him incorrectly, or engaged in any similar 

conduct that would clearly evince a wanton disregard for any serious medical 

needs.” Domino v. Texas Dep’t of Crim. Justice, 239 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir. 

2001) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Boyd’s allegations that 

he did not receive all the prescribed doses of his medications, at most, 

demonstrate negligence. See Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 346 (5th Cir. 

2006); Hall v. Thomas, 190 F.3d 693, 697 (5th Cir. 1999); Mayweather v. Foti, 

958 F.2d 91, 91-92 (5th Cir. 1992). Mere negligence is not sufficient to support 

a claim for deliberate indifference. See Gobert, 463 F.3d at 346. 

Boyd complains that the district court relied on inaccurate information

in dismissing his complaint. However, the court explicitly stated that it would 

not consider those statements that Boyd represented were erroneous. Thus, 

contrary to Boyd’s assertion, the district court did not rely on any untrue 

information. Accordingly, the district court properly determined that Boyd 

failed to state a claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 

 Case: 18-40644 Document: 00514987582 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/07/2019
No. 18-40644

3

The district court’s dismissal of Boyd’s § 1983 complaint pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A counts as a strike for purposes of § 1915(g). See Brown v. Megg, 

857 F.3d 287, 290-92 (5th Cir. 2017); Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 

385-87 (5th Cir. 1996), abrogated in part on other grounds by Coleman v. 

Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 1759, 1762-63 (2015). Boyd is CAUTIONED that if he 

accumulates three strikes, he will not be able to proceed in forma pauperis in 

any civil action or appeal while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility 

unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).

AFFIRMED; MOTIONS GRANTED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

 Case: 18-40644 Document: 00514987582 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/07/2019