Court Opinion

ID: 9840044
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-15 00:00:43.578538+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:33.693154
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-30787         Document: 00516895599             Page: 1      Date Filed: 09/14/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-30787
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                             September 14, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   Quinten M. Moran,                                                                   Clerk

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   Louisiana Department of Public Safety and
   Corrections; Kirt D. Guerin; Walter Gerald; Unknown
   Robinson,

                                               Defendants—Appellees.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Middle District of Louisiana
                                USDC No. 3:22-CV-512
                      ______________________________

   Before Jones, Higginson, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Quinten M. Moran, Louisiana prisoner # 465482, moves for leave to
   proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in his appeal of the sua sponte dismissal of
   his civil action. The motion is a challenge to the district court’s certification

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30787         Document: 00516895599              Page: 2       Date Filed: 09/14/2023

                                          No. 22-30787

   that the appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197,
   202 (5th Cir. 1997).
           Moran argues that the district court erred in dismissing his claims.
   However, with regard to his claims based on deliberate indifference to serious
   medical needs, the inadequacy of grievance procedures, verbal abuse and
   threats, and conspiracy, Moran’s failure to address the district court’s
   grounds for dismissal “without even the slightest identification of any error
   in [the court’s] legal analysis or its application to [his] suit . . . is the same as
   if he had not appealed that judgment.” Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy
   Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Therefore, these four claims
   are forfeited. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993);
   Brinkmann, 813 F.2d at 748. As to his sole remaining claim, which concerns
   the asserted failure to protect him from another inmate, as the district court
   determined, the claim fails because it is based on alleged negligent acts, not
   deliberate indifference to Moran’s safety. See Oliver v. Collins, 914 F.2d 56,
   60 (5th Cir. 1990). 1
           Also, Moran contends that the district court abused its discretion by
   dismissing his action without giving him an opportunity to amend his
   complaint a second time. However, Moran was on notice of the deficiencies
   in his amended complaint, yet he failed to “proffer a proposed second
   amended complaint to the district court,” and did not “suggest . . . any
   additional facts not initially pled that could, if necessary, cure the pleading
   defects.” Goldstein v. MCI WorldCom, 340 F.3d 238, 254-55 (5th Cir. 2003).

           _____________________
           1
             In a footnote, Moran contends that the allegations of his complaint, if taken as
   true, establish the defendants’ guilt of various criminal offenses. To the extent that
   Moran’s argument can be liberally construed as raising additional civil rights claims,
   because he did not pursue such claims in the district court, this court will not address them
   on appeal. See Williams v. Ballard, 466 F.3d 330, 335 (5th Cir. 2006).

                                                2
Case: 22-30787      Document: 00516895599           Page: 3   Date Filed: 09/14/2023

                                     No. 22-30787

   In such circumstances, a district court does not abuse its discretion in
   denying leave to amend. See id.
          In view of the foregoing, Moran has failed to show that “the appeal
   involves legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).”
   Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks
   and citation omitted). Because the appeal lacks arguable merit, Moran’s IFP
   motion is DENIED, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED as frivolous. See
   Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; Howard, 707 F.2d at 220; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
          The district court’s dismissal of the complaint for failure to state
   a claim and the dismissal as frivolous of this appeal each count as a strike for
   purposes of 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). Moran is WARNED that if he accumulates three
   strikes, he will no longer be allowed to proceed 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).

                                          3