Court Opinion

ID: 9912305
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-22 01:00:47.607211+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:58:30.007027
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-40018        Document: 00517011136             Page: 1      Date Filed: 12/21/2023

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

                                                                             FILED
                                      No. 23-40018
                                                                     December 21, 2023
                                     ____________
                                                                        Lyle W. Cayce
   Michael Bohannan,                                                         Clerk

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Bryan Williams, TDCJ-CID Warden II; Anthony Newton,
   TDCJ-CID Warden I; Kevin Smith, TDCJ-CID Warden I; Michael
   Woods, TDCJ-RPD Chaplain; Charles Rowry, TDCJ-RPD
   Chaplain; Captain Christopher Norsworthy, Senior Warden;
   Chibuike Onwuka, Assistant Warden; Lashunda Fisher,
   Assistant Warden; Thomas M. Ewing, Chaplain; John Doe,
   Chaplain; Mary L. Gilder, FSM IV; R. Mallet, Senior Practice
   Manager; Jacquelyn Womack, Senior Practice Manager,

                                              Defendants—Appellees.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Eastern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 1:20-CV-252
                     ______________________________

   Before Stewart, Clement, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-40018       Document: 00517011136         Page: 2    Date Filed: 12/21/2023

                                    No. 23-40018

            Michael Bohannan, Texas prisoner # 1841746, moves to proceed in
   forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the dismissal of his civil rights
   complaint for want of prosecution. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
            Bohannan challenges the district court’s denial of IFP, arguing that
   the court addressed only one of the six court orders that he sought to appeal,
   did not specifically find that an appeal of the noncompliance dismissal would
   be frivolous, did not make findings regarding the five appellate issues that he
   allegedly raised, and used the wrong IFP standard in determining that his
   appeal was “lacking in good faith.” However, these arguments do not raise
   a nonfrivolous issue because they are belied by the record, which reflects
   implicit findings regarding frivolousness, and because they misstate the
   applicable law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3);
   Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); Soffar v. Dretke, 368 F.3d
   441, 470-71 (5th Cir. 2004), amended on other grounds, 391 F.3d 703 (5th Cir.
   2004).     Although Bohannan also argues that he does not qualify as a
   “prisoner” as defined in the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 (PLRA),
   Bohannan, who has been convicted of violating a civil commitment order and
   sentenced to life in prison, is a “prisoner” for purposes of the PLRA. See 28
   U.S.C. § 1915(h); Bohannan v. State, 546 S.W.3d 166, 168-71 (Tex. Crim.
   App. 2017); see also Bohannan v. Redic, No. 20-40860, 2023 WL 2346335, at
   *1 (5th Cir. Mar. 1, 2023) (unpublished).
            Additionally, Bohannan argues that the magistrate judge’s
   prejudgment order striking his motion for injunctive relief and striking his
   amended complaint was dispositive and thus the magistrate judge exceeded
   the authority granted under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); that the district court
   did not address the magistrate judge’s striking of his amended complaint;
   that he did not require leave of court to file his motion for injunctive relief;
   and that the district court abused its discretion in denying his two Federal
   Rule of Civil Procedure 72 motions.          However, he has not raised a

                                          2
Case: 23-40018     Document: 00517011136           Page: 3   Date Filed: 12/21/2023

                                    No. 23-40018

   nonfrivolous issue because, as noted by the district court, Bohannan’s failure
   to comply with court orders, rather than the grant of the defendants’ motion
   to strike, ultimately disposed of his case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
   Moreover, the district court reviewed the orders at issue and determined that
   they were not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Although Bohannan also
   contends that the district court’s memorandum and order dismissing his
   complaint for failure to comply with court orders conflicted with the district
   court’s judgment stating that the complaint was being dismissed for failure
   to prosecute, both the district court’s memorandum and order and its
   judgment stated that the complaint was being dismissed under Rule 41(b),
   regardless of how the rule was labeled.
          Next, Bohannan argues that the district court should have looked to
   his other pleadings that explained his confusion about how to properly
   comply with the district court’s order and it should have liberally construed
   those pleadings as amendments to his amended complaint, rather than
   ignoring them. He contends that he was entitled to amend his complaint once
   as a matter of course and that the district court abused its discretion by
   upholding the striking of his amended complaint based on his misjoinder of
   parties. However, the district court’s dismissal of his complaint was not
   based on these issues and was instead based on his failure to file a complaint
   that complied with the magistrate judge’s and district court’s orders, despite
   being admonished that his complaint would be dismissed under Rule 41(b) if
   he failed to do so. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Moreover, his arguments do
   not refute the magistrate judge’s specific reasons for finding that the
   amended complaint was deficient.
          Bohannan also argues that the district court should not have dismissed
   his complaint with prejudice because he had not caused delay, his filings had
   not constituted contumacious conduct, and the conduct this court noted was
   contumacious in Bohannan, 2023 WL 2346335, at *1, differed from that in

                                         3
Case: 23-40018        Document: 00517011136        Page: 4    Date Filed: 12/21/2023

                                    No. 23-40018

   this case. He also contends that the district court failed to make findings
   regarding lesser sanctions. However, these arguments do not demonstrate a
   nonfrivolous issue because the record is replete with pleadings filed by
   Bohannan that were not in accordance with the various orders giving him
   opportunities to file a complying amended complaint; because he was
   admonished that his failure to comply would result in the dismissal of his
   complaint with prejudice; and because the conduct noted in his prior appeal
   need not have been identical to have lent further support to Bohannan’s
   history of contumacious conduct. Cf. McNeal v. Papasan, 842 F.2d 787, 790
   (5th Cir. 1988).
          Finally, Bohannan conclusorily contends that the district court abused
   its discretion in denying his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion.
   However, he has not raised a nonfrivolous issue because he has not
   demonstrated that the district court’s denial of relief under Rule 59(e) was
   based on manifest legal or factual errors or improper failure to allow the
   presentation of new evidence. See Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473,
   479 (5th Cir. 2004).
          Because Bohannan fails to show that his appeal raises a nonfrivolous
   issue, his motion to proceed IFP is DENIED, and the appeal is
   DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 n.24 (5th
   Cir. 1997); Howard, 707 F.2d at 220; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
          This dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a strike under 28
   U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir.
   1996), abrogated in part on other grounds by Coleman v. Tollefson, 575 U.S. 532,
   537 (2015). Bohannan is WARNED that if he accumulates three strikes, he
   will be barred from proceeding IFP 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