Court Opinion

ID: 9392476
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-05 00:00:23.809574+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:46.118652
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-30401        Document: 00516738840             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. 22-30401                         Lyle W. Cayce
                                    Summary Calendar                            Clerk
                                    ____________

   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.
Case: 22-30401      Document: 00516738840           Page: 2    Date Filed: 05/04/2023

                                     No. 22-30401

          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’s jurisprudence 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.

                                              2
Case: 22-30401     Document: 00516738840           Page: 3   Date Filed: 05/04/2023

                                    No. 22-30401

          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.

                                             3