Court Opinion

ID: 9399663
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-06 00:00:36.776795+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:32.977769
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-40274         Document: 00516775061             Page: 1      Date Filed: 06/05/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                        United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit

                                      ____________                                      FILED
                                                                                      June 5, 2023
                                       No. 22-40274                               Lyle W. Cayce
                                      ____________                                     Clerk

   Herbert Hoover Pratt, III,

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   Miguel Martinez, Region IV Director; Gene Miller, Assistant
   Warden, McConnell Unit,

                                               Defendants—Appellees.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Southern District of Texas
                                USDC No. 2:21-CV-100
                      ______________________________

   Before Jones, Clement, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Herbert Hoover Pratt III, a Texas prisoner proceeding pro se and in
   forma pauperis, brought this underlying suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The
   district court dismissed Pratt’s claims as frivolous and for failure to state a
   claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1). Pratt moved for
   reconsideration, which the district court denied. For the reasons set forth

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40274          Document: 00516775061                 Page: 2    Date Filed: 06/05/2023

                                           No. 22-40274

   below, we AFFIRM. We also DENY Pratt’s motion to appoint appellate
   counsel.
                                             I.       Facts
          Pratt is a Texas prisoner. Our factual recitation is taken from his
   complaint, which we accept as true. 1 In July 2019, prison administrators
   conducted a disciplinary hearing and found Pratt guilty of possessing
   contraband.       They assessed sanctions, which included placing Pratt in
   restrictive housing.        Pratt urged that the contraband was not his and
   challenged the disciplinary charge in several ways. First, he filed two
   administrative grievances contesting the procedures used in the hearing.
   Then, he filed a federal habeas petition, arguing the same. Last, he requested
   administrative review from Assistant Warden Gene Miller and Regional
   Director Miguel Martinez (collectively, “Defendants”). In December 2020,
   Pratt’s disciplinary charge was overturned, and he was released from
   restrictive housing.
          After his release, prison administrators assigned Pratt to a job
   placement in the unit’s garment factory. But Pratt alleges that Miller
   subsequently had him removed from that assignment to retaliate against Pratt
   for seeking administrative review of his disciplinary charge. Pratt contends
   that, in doing so, Miller deprived him of “important job skills and a chance
   to show positive change.” However, prison administrators placed Pratt in a
   variety of job assignments after that—he cycled through the medical squad,
   janitorial staff, and then to the kitchen, where he is currently a cook.
          Pratt sued both Defendants in their individual capacities and Martinez
   in his official capacity, averring they violated his Eighth Amendment and Due

          _____________________
          1
              See Legate v. Livingston, 822 F.3d 207, 210 (5th Cir. 2016).

                                                  2
Case: 22-40274        Document: 00516775061              Page: 3       Date Filed: 06/05/2023

                                         No. 22-40274

   Process rights by placing him in restrictive housing and refusing to conduct
   an administrative review of his disciplinary charge. He further alleged that
   Miller retaliated against him in violation of the First Amendment when
   Miller removed him from his job at the garment factory.
           After a Spears 2 hearing, the district court dismissed Pratt’s complaint
   for failure to state a claim and as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)
   and 1915A(b)(1). Pratt moved for reconsideration, which the district court
   denied. This appeal followed.
                                 II.    Standard of Review
           On appeal, Pratt asserts that the district court erred in dismissing his
   claims. We review a district court’s dismissal under §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and
   1915A(b)(1) de novo. Legate v. Livingston, 822 F.3d 207, 209 (5th Cir. 2016).
   To determine whether a complaint fails to state a claim, we apply the same
   standard used to review dismissals under Rule 12(b)(6). Id. at 209–10.
   Accordingly, the “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted
   as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v.
   Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
   544, 570 (2007)). Alternatively, “[a] claim [is] frivolous if it [lacks] an
   arguable basis in fact or law.” Brewster v. Dretke, 587 F.3d 764, 767 (5th Cir.
   2009) (per curiam). A claim lacks an arguable basis in fact or law if it is
   predicated “on an indisputably meritless legal theory.” Samford v. Dretke,
   562 F.3d 674, 678 (5th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (quotation omitted).

           _____________________
           2
            Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179, 181–82 (5th Cir. 1985) overruled on other grounds
   by Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989).

                                                3
Case: 22-40274         Document: 00516775061              Page: 4       Date Filed: 06/05/2023

                                          No. 22-40274

                                      III.    Discussion
           As a threshold matter, we conclude that Pratt has waived several
   issues on appeal. His briefing does not discuss the district court’s dismissal
   of his official capacity claim against Martinez or the denial of his
   reconsideration motion. We liberally construe pro se briefs, Mapes v. Bishop,
   541 F.3d 582, 584 (5th Cir. 2008), but—even construed liberally—Pratt has
   failed to brief any argument challenging these determinations. Accordingly,
   any arguments relevant to those points are waived. See Yohey v. Collins, 985
   F.2d 222, 224–25 (5th Cir. 1993); Holman v. Collier, 830 F. App’x 738, 738–
   39 (5th Cir. 2020) (per curiam).
           As to Pratt’s remaining claims, we conclude he has failed to establish
   that he was deprived of a constitutional right. See Pratt v. Harris County, 822
   F.3d 174, 180 (5th Cir. 2016). First, Pratt contends that Defendants violated
   his due process rights by denying him administrative review of his
   disciplinary charge. But Pratt’s own allegations contradict that statement—
   he pleads that he filed administrative grievances, and his disciplinary charge
   was later overturned. To the extent he is complaining that the grievances
   were not immediately resolved in his favor, a prisoner “does not have a
   federally protected liberty interest in having [his prison] grievances resolved
   to his satisfaction.” Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 374 (5th Cir. 2005) (per
   curiam). Accordingly, Pratt’s dissatisfaction with timing of the grievance
   procedures does not give rise to an actionable due process claim. 3
           Second, Pratt pleads that Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment
   rights. But he fails to set forth a cognizable theory to support any purported
           _____________________
           3
             To the extent that Pratt contends in his opening brief that the Defendants’ actions
   were contrary to a prison policy, Pratt’s pleadings do not make such an allegation. We
   generally do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Leverette v.
   Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999) (per curiam).

                                                4
Case: 22-40274        Document: 00516775061              Page: 5       Date Filed: 06/05/2023

                                         No. 22-40274

   violation.    He does not, for instance, challenge the conditions of his
   confinement. See, e.g., Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994); Harper
   v. Showers, 174 F.3d 716, 719–20 (5th Cir. 1999). He does seem to assert that
   his mere presence in restrictive housing violated his Eighth Amendment
   rights. But he fails to allege that either Defendant was personally involved in
   the decision to place him there. Therefore, even if that were a cognizable
   claim, he has failed to state a non-frivolous claim for relief. 4
           Third, Pratt alleges that Miller retaliated against him in violation of
   his First Amendment rights. Pratt contends Miller removed him from his
   assignment at the garment factory because Pratt sought review of the
   disciplinary charge. This claim, too, fails. To state a § 1983 claim for
   retaliation, Pratt must plead the existence of a “retaliatory adverse act.”
   Jones v. Greninger, 188 F.3d 322, 324–25 (5th Cir. 1999) (per curiam). That
   retaliatory act is actionable, though, only if it “is capable of deterring a person
   of ordinary firmness from further exercising his constitutional rights.” Bibbs
   v. Early, 541 F.3d 267, 270 (5th Cir. 2008) (quotation omitted). Accordingly,
   we have held that mere “de minimis” retaliatory acts “do not rise to the level
   of constitutional violations and cannot form the basis of a § 1983 claim.”
   Morris v. Powell, 449 F.3d 682, 687 (5th Cir. 2006) (rejecting retaliation claim
   where prisoner was merely moved from one job to another).
           Pratt fails to plead more than a de minimis act of retaliation here.
   Although Miller removed Pratt from his assignment at the garment factory,

           _____________________
           4
             We observe that the district court did not explicitly address Pratt’s Eighth
   Amendment claim in its analysis; rather it merely dismissed all claims against the
   Defendants in their individual capacities as frivolous and for failure to state a claim,
   including the Eighth Amendment claim. Nevertheless, Pratt did not challenge the district
   court’s failure to explicitly address this claim in his motion for reconsideration, nor does
   he press any error with this failure on appeal. Accordingly, we do not address it here. See
   Wise v. Wilkie, 955 F.3d 430, 437 (5th Cir. 2020).

                                                5
Case: 22-40274        Document: 00516775061              Page: 6     Date Filed: 06/05/2023

                                          No. 22-40274

   Pratt was quickly assigned to a series of other positions, including an
   assignment on a medical squad, to a janitor position, and to a kitchen cook
   position. Pratt fails to plead any allegations demonstrating how these other
   positions were inadequate or somehow presented him with less opportunities
   than the position at the garment factory. While he suggests that this transfer
   deprived him of the opportunity to obtain on-the-job training, he does not
   explain why the garment factory was the only place which would provide him
   with that training. Nor does he complain specifically about his job in the
   kitchen or suggest that it was a demotion or more onerous than the garment
   factory job. Therefore, even assuming arguendo that Pratt’s reassignment
   was punitive, Pratt has failed to establish that it was anything more than a de
   minimis retaliatory act. 5
                                    IV.      Conclusion
           Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. Pratt’s
   motion for appointment of counsel on appeal is DENIED. See Ulmer v.
   Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212–13 (5th Cir. 1982).

           _____________________
           5
              Pratt also seems to argue that the district court improperly resolved disputed
   factual issues. We disagree. The district court considered only facts alleged in Pratt’s
   complaint and his testimony at the Spears hearing. This argument, too, is without merit.

                                               6