United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

____________

No. 22-30401

Summary Calendar

____________

Nicholas L. Woods, 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

B. Wiley, Federal Officer, Federal Correctional Complex Oakdale, LA 

(Low); S. Mata, Warden, Federal Correctional Complex Oakdale, LA 

(Low); S I A Deville, S.I.A., Federal Correctional Complex Oakdale, LA 

(Low), 

Defendants—Appellees.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:22-CV-592

______________________________

Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:

*

Plaintiff-Appellant Nicholas L. Woods, a federal prisoner proceeding 

pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals the dismissal of his complaint with 

prejudice. We AFFIRM.

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 4, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-30401 Document: 00516738840 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/04/2023
No. 22-30401

2

In his complaint, Woods alleges that Defendant-Appellee Officer B. 

Wiley falsely stated on an incident report that Woods had spit on him. Woods 

alleges that he had been wearing an N-95 mask during the encounter, making 

Wiley’s version of the events impossible. Woods also claims that 

Defendants-Appellees Warden S. Mata and Special Investigative Agent 

Deville failed to properly investigate Wiley’s alleged misrepresentation once 

Woods had brought it to their attention. The district court dismissed 

Woods’s claims as frivolous under the in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), reasoning that they are not actionable under Bivens v. Six 

Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

We review claims dismissed as frivolous under the in forma pauperis 

statute for an abuse of discretion, Butler v. Porter, 999 F.3d 287, 292 (5th Cir. 

2021), construing a pro se litigant’s pleadings and arguments liberally, id.; 

Johnson v. Quarterman, 479 F.3d 358, 359 (5th Cir. 2007). A complaint is 

frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. 

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). “A complaint lacks an arguable basis in 

law if it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, such as if the 

complaint alleges the violation of a legal interest which clearly does not 

exist.” Harper v. Showers, 174 F.3d 716, 718 (5th Cir. 1999) (quoting Davis v. 

Scott, 157 F.3d 1003, 1005 (5th Cir. 1998)). “The Supreme Court has recently 

reiterated that expanding the Bivens cause of action has ‘become “a 

‘disfavored’ judicial activity.”’” Watkins v. Three Admin. Remedy 

Coordinators of Bureau of Prisons, 998 F.3d 682, 685 (5th Cir. 2021) (quoting 

Hernandez v. Mesa, 140 S. Ct. 735, 742 (2020)). Here, Woods does not 

identify an implied cause of action that has already been recognized under 

Bivens’sjurisprudence that is akin to his own. And he provides no persuasive 

reason to extend Bivens’s reach in this context. See Hernandez, 140 S. Ct. at 

744. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing 

Woods’s complaint as frivolous.

Case: 22-30401 Document: 00516738840 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/04/2023
No. 22-30401

3

Woods also challenges the dismissal of his complaint with prejudice,

arguing that he should have been afforded leave to amend. Although the 

district court explicitly dismissed Woods’s complaint with prejudice, Woods 

never moved for the relief he requests now below. “[T]he Prison Litigation 

Reform Act requires a district court sua sponte to dismiss a prisoner’s IFP 

civil rights complaint if the court determines that the action is frivolous or 

fails to state a claim.” Alexander v. Stiles, 54 F. App’x 412 (5th Cir. 2002) 

(per curiam); see Rogers v. Flores, 273 F.3d 1100 (5th Cir. 2001) (unpublished 

per curiam) (“[Appellant’s] argument that the district court abused its 

discretion in refusing to allow him to amend his complaint is factually 

frivolous. He did amend his complaint once, and he did not seek permission 

to amend or present a second complaint after the magistrate judge had 

recommended dismissal.”). Furthermore, Woods fails to explain how he 

might overcome his complaint’s deficiencies, despite contending that he 

would rectify the legal issues that were the basis for the dismissal below 

through “more ‘artfully’ structuring the complaint were he allowed to 

amend it.” Nor is it apparent to us that such corrective pleading is possible.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 22-30401 Document: 00516738840 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/04/2023