Court Opinion

ID: 9392477
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-05 00:00:24.462371+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:46.122689
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-40484         Document: 00516738378             Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/04/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                       United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________                                     FILED
                                                                                      May 4, 2023
                                       No. 22-40484
                                     Summary Calendar                            Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                      Clerk
                                     ____________

   Eduardo Vela,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   Doctor Presley, Doctor, Coastal Bend Detention Center;
   United States Marshall Service; The GEO Group,
   Incorporated,

                                               Defendants—Appellees.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Southern District of Texas
                                USDC No. 2:21-CV-193
                      ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Plaintiff-Appellant Eduardo Vela, now federal prisoner # 37706-479,
   appeals the dismissal of his lawsuit under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named
   Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 397 (1971), for failure to state
   a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and § 1915A. Vela has also

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40484      Document: 00516738378          Page: 2    Date Filed: 05/04/2023

                                    No. 22-40484

   filed a motion for appointment of counsel. For the following reasons, we
   AFFIRM the district court’s judgment and DENY Vela’s motion for
   appointment of counsel.
           We review the district court’s dismissal of Vela’s lawsuit de novo.
   Legate v. Livingston, 822 F.3d 207, 209–10 (5th Cir. 2016). Dismissal is
   appropriate when a complaint does not “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).
           By affording his brief liberal construction, we conclude that Vela
   renews his claims that Dr. Presley, the GEO Group, Inc. (“GEO Group”),
   and the United States Marshal Service (“USMS”) were deliberately
   indifferent to his serious medical needs while he was a pretrial detainee in the
   Coastal Bend Detention Center. He urges that Defendants-Appellees denied
   or delayed care and mistreated him for his numbness in his feet, urinary
   problems, and ear infections. He also complains that his problems continue
   to worsen, that he was denied an appointment with a neurologist, and that he
   has been denied hearing aids.
           Vela has abandoned these claims by failing to brief any challenge to
   the district court’s denial of his implied motion to amend his complaint. See
   Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224–25 (5th Cir. 1993). In fact, he specifically
   denies that he sought to amend his complaint. However, he now sets forth,
   for the first time on appeal, more detailed factual allegations regarding Dr.
   Presley’s alleged failure to treat him for the bone fragment that he claims
   protruded through his gum during the pendency of these proceedings, urging
   that he received inadequate treatment for the ongoing problem and resulting
   pain.
           To the extent that Vela raises new arguments and allegations not first
   presented to the district court, we need not consider them. See Martinez v.

                                          2
Case: 22-40484      Document: 00516738378           Page: 3    Date Filed: 05/04/2023

                                     No. 22-40484

   Pompeo, 977 F.3d 457, 460 (5th Cir. 2020); Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co.,
   183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999) (same). Even were that not so, Vela’s claim
   is subject to dismissal for the reason explained below.
          The district court correctly held that Dr. Presley and the GEO Group
   are private actors not subject to liability under Bivens for conduct that
   typically falls within the scope of traditional state tort law. See Minneci v.
   Pollard, 565 U.S. 118, 131 (2012); Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko, 534
   U.S. 61, 66 (2001); Eltayib v. Cornell Companies, Inc., 533 F. App’x 414, 414–
   15 (5th Cir. 2013). Vela has abandoned any claim against the remaining
   defendant, the USMS, by failing to brief any argument challenging the
   district court’s conclusion that USMS is similarly not subject to suit. See
   Yohey, 985 F.2d at 224–25. Even had he briefed this argument, it would be
   unavailing because Bivens does not provide a cause of action against federal
   agencies. See FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 484–86 (1994).
          Moreover, Vela has shown no error on the part of the district court in
   dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim. He likewise fails to show
   that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motions for the
   appointment of counsel. See Baranowski v. Hart, 486 F.3d 112, 126 (5th Cir.
   2007); Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982).
          We therefore AFFIRM the district court’s judgment. Our
   affirmance of the district court’s dismissal of Vela’s complaint under
   § 1915(e)(2)(B) counts as one strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba
   v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996), abrogated in part on other
   grounds by Coleman v. Tollefson, 575 U.S. 532, 534–41 (2015). Vela is
   WARNED that if he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed in forma
   pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained
   in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.

                                          3
Case: 22-40484    Document: 00516738378         Page: 4   Date Filed: 05/04/2023

                                 No. 22-40484

   See § 1915(g). Additionally, Vela’s motion for appointment of counsel is
   DENIED.

                                      4