Court Opinion

ID: 9447913
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 23:00:29.335212+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:46.939216
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-40725    Document: 00516845274       Page: 1    Date Filed: 08/03/2023

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

                              ____________                              FILED
                                                                   August 3, 2023
                               No. 22-40725                        Lyle W. Cayce
                           consolidated with                            Clerk
                               No. 23-40017
                             Summary Calendar
                             ____________

   Daniel Neal Martin,

                                                        Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                    versus

   Sheriff Larry Busby; Charlie Stroleny, Chief Deputy;
   Deputy Nowlan; Deputy Peerman; Deputy Salinas,

                                          Defendants—Appellees.
                 ______________________________

                 Appeals from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Texas
                   USDC Nos. 2:22-CV-181, 2:22-CV-181
                 ______________________________
Case: 22-40725      Document: 00516845274           Page: 2     Date Filed: 08/03/2023

                                     No. 22-40725
                                   c/w No. 23-40017

   Before Jones, Southwick, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Daniel Neal Martin, Texas prisoner # 26884, appeals the dismissal of
   his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit as either frivolous or for failure to state a claim upon
   which relief may be granted, or both, under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and
   1915A(b)(1). Martin alleged that the defendants violated his civil rights by
   not investigating and prosecuting claims he made about numerous private
   citizens committing acts of violence against him. Martin also moves for
   appointment of counsel.
          We review the dismissal for failure to state a claim or as frivolous
   under §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1) de novo. See Geiger v. Jowers,
   404 F.3d 371, 373 (5th Cir. 2005). To determine whether an action states a
   claim on which relief may be granted, a court must determine whether the
   complaint “contain[s] 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) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A complaint is
   frivolous “if it lacks an arguable basis in fact or law.” Berry v. Brady, 192 F.3d
   504, 507 (5th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted).
          Martin argues that the district court erred when it dismissed his claims
   of sex and gender discrimination, failure of the defendants to investigate and
   prosecute claims, and failure of the defendants to protect him. He reiterates
   his claim that private citizens committed acts of violence against him and that
   the defendants failed to investigate or prosecute those claims after he
   reported them.

          _____________________
          *
            Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

                                               2
Case: 22-40725      Document: 00516845274          Page: 3     Date Filed: 08/03/2023

                                     No. 22-40725
                                   c/w No. 23-40017

          First, Martin has not shown that the district court erred in dismissing
   the sex and gender discrimination claim because he offers nothing more than
   a personal belief, rather than an allegation of specific acts, to demonstrate he
   was the subject of such discrimination by the defendants or any other
   individual. See Woods v. Edwards, 51 F.3d 577, 580 (5th Cir. 1995). Second,
   Martin also has not demonstrated that the district court erred in dismissing
   his failure-to-investigate and failure-to-prosecute claims as he has no
   constitutional right to have state officials investigate and prosecute
   individuals. See Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973); Lefebure
   v. D’Aquilla, 15 F.4th 650, 654-55 (5th Cir. 2021); Oliver v. Collins, 914 F.2d
   56, 60 (5th Cir. 1990). Finally, any failure by the defendants to protect
   Martin does not implicate his rights under the Eighth or Fourteenth
   Amendments. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994); DeShaney v.
   Winnebago Cnty. Dept. of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 197 (1989); Kovacic v.
   Villareal, 628 F.3d 209, 213 (5th Cir. 2010).
          In addition, Martin raises claims of excessive force, due process
   violations, deliberate indifference to his medical needs, and unconstitutional
   conditions of confinement. Because Martin did not raise these claims in the
   suit forming the basis of this appeal, we will not consider them in this appeal.
   See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999).
          Based on the foregoing discussion, the district court did not err in
   dismissing Martin’s complaint as either frivolous or for failure to state a claim
   upon which relief may be granted. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Berry, 192 F.3d
   at 507. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED, and Martin’s
   motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. The district court’s
   dismissal of Martin’s complaint under § 1915(e)(2)(B) counts as a single
   strike under § 1915(g). See § 1915(g); Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383,
   387 (5th Cir. 1996), abrogated in part on other grounds by Coleman, 575 U.S.
   534-41. Accordingly, Martin is WARNED that if he accumulates three

                                              3
Case: 22-40725     Document: 00516845274         Page: 4    Date Filed: 08/03/2023

                                   No. 22-40725
                                 c/w No. 23-40017

   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. See § 1915(g).

                                            4