Court Opinion

ID: 9949196
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-09 01:00:33.263194+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:28:42.627486
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-40809           Document: 57-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/08/2024

          United States Court of Appeals
               for the Fifth Circuit                                   United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                Fifth Circuit
                                  ____________                                FILED
                                                                          March 8, 2024
                                   No. 22-40809
                                  ____________                           Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                              Clerk
Shawn J. Gieswein,

                                                                 Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                         versus

Salmonson, Warden, FCI Texarkana; Wolfe, Assistant Warden, FCI
Texarkana; Colette S. Peters, Director of Bureau of Prisons; Grand
Prairie Regional Director; United States of America,

                                           Defendants—Appellees.
                  ______________________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Eastern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 5:20-CV-51
                  ______________________________

Before Willett, Wilson, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
      Shawn Gieswein, federal prisoner #16635-064, appeals the district
court’s dismissal of his pro se suit for failure to state a claim. We AFFIRM.

      _____________________
      *
          This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40809       Document: 57-1        Page: 2    Date Filed: 03/08/2024

                                 No. 22-40809

                                       I
       In April 2020, Gieswein sued his warden and other prison officials for
various claims related to COVID-19 on behalf of himself and purportedly on
behalf of “all non-violent prisoners in FCI Low Texarkana, Texas.” The
class was never certified. Gieswein’s complaint alleged that on March 29,
2020, Attorney General William Barr ordered the Bureau of Prisons (BOP)
to release nonviolent, at-risk prisoners to home confinement in response to
COVID-19. Gieswein alleged that the BOP failed to release any prisoners
under this order, even though release to home confinement was necessary to
prevent the spread of the virus due to his prison’s conditions. Gieswein
alleged that the prison was overcrowded without space to social distance, the
inmates lacked proper cleaning supplies, and some guards did not wear face
masks. Gieswein also alleged that under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
Economic Security Act (CARES Act), Pub. L. No. 116-136, § 12003(b)(2),
(c)(1), 134 Stat. 281, 516 (2020), the BOP was required to provide free phone
calls and video teleconferencing, but neither were provided in his prison.
       Gieswein sought release for himself and all eligible prisoners as well as
$1 million “each day that Defendants refuse to release Plaintiffs and deny
them access to free phone calls and teleconferencing,” $50,000,000 for pain
and suffering if a plaintiff contracted COVID-19, and $250,000,000 to be
paid to the plaintiff’s family if a plaintiff died from COVID-19.
       A magistrate judge screened Gieswein’s complaint as required by 28
U.S.C. § 1915A. The magistrate judge recommended that Gieswein’s
complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim because (1) the Attorney
General’s memorandum did not order the release of prisoners, but instead
created a process by which inmates could seek compassionate release;
(2) Gieswein’s claim for monetary damages was speculative given that his
claim was based on the possibility that he or other inmates might contract

                                       2
Case: 22-40809          Document: 57-1       Page: 3      Date Filed: 03/08/2024

                                    No. 22-40809

COVID-19 in the future; and (3) prisoners have no constitutional right to
free telephone calls.
       Gieswein    objected    to     the    magistrate    judge’s   report   and
recommendation. His objections reiterated that the BOP refused to transfer
eligible prisoners to home confinement as the Attorney General allegedly
ordered and that his prison did not provide free phone calls or video
teleconferencing as required by the CARES Act. Gieswein objected to the
magistrate judge’s interpretation of the CARES Act and Attorney General’s
memorandum. He also alleged the following new facts: the prison had been
locked down since March 2020 because of two COVID-19 outbreaks;
because the prison had been locked down for 18 months, he had “little or no
access to outside exercise, fresh air, and sunlight,” gained 35 pounds, and has
suffered mentally and physically; and the BOP failed to protect the inmates
because 98% of the inmate population contracted COVID-19 at least once,
he contracted COVID-19 and was seriously ill, and two inmates died. He
argued that he and the other eligible inmates should receive monetary
compensation and extra good-time credit.
       In December 2022, after considering Gieswein’s objections and new
allegations, the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation in full and dismissed the case without prejudice for failure
to state a claim. Gieswein appealed.
                                        II
       We review a district court’s dismissal of a civil rights complaint under
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) de novo, applying the same standard we apply to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). DeMarco v. Davis, 914 F.3d 383,
386 (5th Cir. 2019). “Generally a district court errs in dismissing a pro se
complaint for failure to state a claim . . . without giving the plaintiff an
opportunity to amend.” Bazrowx v. Scott, 136 F.3d 1053, 1054 (5th Cir. 1998)

                                         3
Case: 22-40809       Document: 57-1        Page: 4   Date Filed: 03/08/2024

                                 No. 22-40809

(per curiam). This opportunity typically takes the form of (1) a hearing under
Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179, 181–82 (5th Cir. 1985), overruled on other
grounds by Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989), or (2) a questionnaire
that brings into focus the bases for the prisoner’s claims. See Carmouche v.
Hooper, 77 F.4th 362, 368 (5th Cir. 2023) (collecting cases). But the district
court does not err if the dismissal was without prejudice, or the plaintiff had
alleged his best case. Bazrowx, 136 F.3d at 1054–55; Mendoza-Tarango v.
Flores, 982 F.3d 395, 402 (5th Cir. 2020).
       Here, the district court dismissed Gieswein’s claims without
prejudice, but the dismissal was effectively with prejudice because the statute
of limitations on Gieswein’s claims had run. See Long v. Simmons, 77 F.3d
878, 880 (5th Cir. 1996); Tampico v. Martinez, 987 F.3d 387, 392 (5th Cir.
2021) (per curiam) (“In Texas, Bivens actions are limited by a two-year
statute of limitations.”). So we “must determine whether [Gieswein’s]
allegations, if developed by a questionnaire or in a Spears dialog, might have
presented” a viable civil rights claim. See Eason v. Thaler, 14 F.3d 8, 9 (5th
Cir. 1994). Denial of leave to amend is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Crostley v. Lamar County, 717 F.3d 410, 420 (5th Cir. 2013).
                                     III
       Liberally construing Gieswein’s pro se brief, United States v. Riascos,
76 F.3d 93, 94 (5th Cir. 1996) (per curiam), he raises two issues: (1) he was
entitled to release to home confinement and free phone calls under the
CARES Act and the Attorney General’s memorandum; and (2) the warden
violated his Eighth Amendment rights by failing to use his authority under
the CARES Act to release Gieswein to home confinement and by failing to
provide free phone calls and video teleconferencing. We assume without

                                      4
 Case: 22-40809         Document: 57-1          Page: 5      Date Filed: 03/08/2024

                                     No. 22-40809

deciding that a Bivens remedy exists for Gieswein’s claims. Petzold v.
Rostollan, 946 F.3d 242, 248 & n.21 (5th Cir. 2019).1
                                           A
        First, we address Gieswein’s claims that he is entitled to release to
home confinement, free phone calls, and video teleconferencing under the
CARES Act and the Attorney General’s memorandum. The district court
properly dismissed these claims.
        As the district court noted, the Attorney General’s memorandum did
not order all eligible prisoners to be released to home confinement. Rather,
the memorandum instructed the Director of the Bureau of Prisons to
“prioritize the use of . . . various statutory authorities to grant home
confinement for inmates seeking transfer in connection with the ongoing
COVID-19 pandemic.” Memorandum from the Attorney General on
Prioritization of Home Confinement as Appropriate in Response to
COVID-19 Pandemic to Director of Bureau of Prisons (Mar. 26, 2020). The
memorandum instructed the Director to “consider the totality of
circumstances for each individual inmate, the statutory requirements for
home confinement,” and a list of “discretionary factors.” Id.; Cheek v.
Warden of Fed. Med. Ctr., 835 F. App’x 737, 740 (5th Cir. 2020) (per curiam)
(addressing the Attorney General’s memorandum).
        Nor does the CARES Act mandate Gieswein’s transfer to home
confinement. The CARES Act expanded the Director’s authority under 18
U.S.C. § 3624(c)(2) to permit the release of prisoners to home confinement

        _____________________
        1
         As the Supreme Court has reiterated, expanding Bivens causes of action beyond
the three situations it has previously recognized is “a ‘disfavored’ judicial activity.”
Hernandez v. Mesa, 140 S. Ct. 735, 742 (2020) (quoting Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120, 135
(2017)).

                                            5
Case: 22-40809       Document: 57-1       Page: 6    Date Filed: 03/08/2024

                                 No. 22-40809

for longer than previously allowed. CARES Act, § 12003(b)(2), 134 Stat. at
516. As we have explained, the Act granted “the BOP and the Attorney
General . . . the discretion to consider the appropriateness of home release
based on certain statutory and discretionary factors.” Cheek, 835 F. App’x at
740 (emphasis added). But “[n]o inmate has a constitutional right to be
housed in a particular place or any constitutional right to early release.” Id.
Gieswein “cites no legal authority, nor are we aware of any, holding that the
CARES Act created an actionable right to release even for qualifying
inmates or a corresponding duty of the respondents to release him.” De La
Cruz Jimenez v. United States, 844 F. App’x 753, 754 (5th Cir. 2021) (per
curiam).
       Similarly, the CARES Act does not require facilities to provide free
video teleconferencing or telephone calls. Rather, it required the BOP’s
director to “promulgate rules” regarding the use of free video
teleconferencing and phone calls during the pandemic. CARES Act,
§ 12003(a)(2), (c)(1), 134 Stat. at 516. Gieswein does not allege that the
Director failed to promulgate those rules.
       So to the extent that Gieswein contends that he stated viable claims
under the CARES Act or is entitled to relief based on the Attorney
General’s memorandum, the district court properly dismissed those claims.
                                      B
       We next address Gieswein’s claims related to the prison’s conditions,
which we liberally construe as an Eighth Amendment claim.
       “The Supreme Court has held that the treatment a prisoner receives
in prison and the conditions under which he is confined are subject to
scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment.” Torres v. Livingston, 972 F.3d 660,
662 (5th Cir. 2020) (quoting Cantu v. Jones, 293 F.3d 839, 844 (5th Cir.
2002)). To establish an Eighth Amendment violation based on prison

                                      6
Case: 22-40809        Document: 57-1        Page: 7     Date Filed: 03/08/2024

                                  No. 22-40809

conditions, the “prison conditions must pose ‘an unreasonable risk of serious
damage’ to a prisoner’s health—an objective test—and prison officials must
have acted with deliberate indifference to the risk posed—a subjective test.”
Dockery v. Cain, 7 F.4th 375, 378 (5th Cir. 2021) (quoting Ball v. LeBlanc, 792
F.3d 584, 592 (5th Cir. 2015)); see also Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834
(1994). “Deliberate indifference is an extremely high standard to meet” and
is not met by a showing of negligence. Torres, 972 F.3d at 663 (citation
omitted). Rather, the plaintiff must demonstrate that officials knew of a
substantial risk of serious bodily harm and disregarded that risk by failing to
take reasonable measures to mitigate it. Id.
       Gieswein argues on appeal that the warden acted with deliberate
indifference because (1) he failed to provide free phone calls or any video
teleconferencing; and (2) he did not use his authority under the CARES Act
to release eligible inmates to home confinement and thus did not take
reasonable measures to reduce the risk of harm from COVID-19 to inmates.
Neither is a plausible Eighth Amendment claim.
       The warden’s alleged failure to provide free phone calls and video
teleconferencing does not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation.
There is “ no constitutional right to visitation privileges.” Berry v. Brady, 192
F.3d   504,    508    (5th    Cir.   1999).      “[R]estrictions   on . . . visiting
privileges . . . [do] not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation.”
LaVergne v. Stutes, 82 F.4th 433, 437 (5th Cir. 2023). This is because
visitation privileges “are a matter subject to the discretion of prison
officials.” Thorne v. Jones, 765 F.2d 1270, 1273 (5th Cir. 1985) (citation
omitted). And as explained above, Gieswein points to no authority that
requires free phone calls or video teleconferencing. Nor does he allege that he
was not allowed to use the phone at all. The temporary withdrawal of
visitation does not “create inhumane prison conditions, deprive inmates of
basic necessities, or fail to protect their health or safety. Nor does it involve

                                        7
Case: 22-40809        Document: 57-1        Page: 8    Date Filed: 03/08/2024

                                  No. 22-40809

the infliction of pain or injury, or deliberate indifference to the risk that it
might occur.” Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126, 137 (2003).
       Gieswein also fails to state an Eighth Amendment claim based on the
warden’s alleged failure to take reasonable measures to reduce the risk from
COVID-19 by releasing inmates to home confinement. “The ‘incidence of
diseases or infections, standing alone,’ do[es] not ‘imply unconstitutional
confinement conditions, since any densely populated residence may be
subject to outbreaks.’ Instead, the plaintiff must show a denial of ‘basic
human needs.’” Valentine v. Collier, 956 F.3d 797, 801 (5th Cir. 2020) (per
curiam) (quoting Shepherd v. Dallas County, 591 F.3d 445, 454 (5th Cir.
2009)). Although we have said that “[t]here is no doubt that infectious
diseases generally and COVID-19 specifically can pose a risk of serious or
fatal harm to prison inmates,” Gieswein did not allege that the defendants
were deliberately indifferent to that risk. See id. at 801–02. On the contrary,
his appellate brief indicates that his facility took affirmative steps to mitigate
the risk from COVID-19. For example, he contends that inmates were tested
for the virus, positive inmates were quarantined in a specific unit, and
inmates were provided masks. These measures preclude a finding of
deliberate indifference. See Valentine, 956 F.3d at 801; Torres, 972 F.3d at 663
(“Deliberate indifference cannot be inferred merely from a negligent or even
a grossly negligent response to a substantial risk of serious harm.” (citation
omitted)). And as we explained, the BOP’s home confinement authority
during the pandemic was discretionary, and Gieswein has no constitutional
right to home confinement. Moreover, Gieswein does not give us any
“indication that he did not plead his best case in his complaint . . . . He does
not state any material facts he would have included in an amended
complaint” that might support an Eighth Amendment claim. See Brewster v.
Dretke, 587 F.3d 764, 768 (5th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). As noted, the district
court considered Gieswein’s new factual allegations in his objections to the

                                        8
Case: 22-40809     Document: 57-1       Page: 9   Date Filed: 03/08/2024

                              No. 22-40809

magistrate judge’s recommendation, essentially treating them as an
amendment to his complaint.
      We thus conclude that Gieswein has pleaded his best case, and the
district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                    9