Court Opinion

ID: 9366714
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-27 19:00:38.302204+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:54.639662
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-40460         Document: 00516625492             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/27/2023

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

                                       No. 22-40460                         FILED
                                      ____________                    January 27, 2023
                                                                       Lyle W. Cayce
   Raul Eliss Dominguez,                                                    Clerk

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   Jeffery W. Catoe; Gary Wright; Sondra Sandoval,

                                               Defendants—Appellees.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Eastern District of Texas
                                USDC No. 6:20-CV-122
                      ______________________________

   Before Clement, Southwick, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Raul Eliss Dominguez, Texas prisoner # 1741417, moves for
   authorization to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the
   dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. By moving in this court to
   proceed IFP, he is challenging the district court’s certification pursuant to 28
   U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3)(A)
   that any appeal would not be taken in good faith because, for the reasons

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40460       Document: 00516625492         Page: 2    Date Filed: 01/27/2023

                                    No. 22-40460

   relied upon in the order and judgment, Dominguez will not present a
   nonfrivolous appellate issue. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.
   1997).
            Dominguez contends that he should be allowed to proceed IFP
   because the district court had found him to be financially eligible for IFP
   status and because stimulus check funds may not be used for payment of filing
   fees. The district court denied IFP status not on financial grounds but based
   on a determination that the appeal was not taken in good faith.             See
   § 1915(a)(3). Moreover, the fact that government-issued stimulus funds may
   be protected from garnishment or attachment does not necessarily prevent
   their use in the payment of court filing fees. See Hawes v. Stephens, 964 F.3d
   412, 417 (5th Cir. 2020).
            Although Dominguez seeks to challenge the magistrate judge’s denial
   of his motion to amend his complaint, we lack jurisdiction to review the ruling
   because Dominguez did not seek review of the denial by the district court.
   See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), (c); Colburn v. Bunge Towing, Inc., 883 F.2d 372,
   379 (5th Cir. 1989). Dominguez challenged the denial of his motion to amend
   in a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) proceeding; however, we lack
   jurisdiction to review the district courts denial of that relief because he did
   not file a timely notice of appeal from that order. See Fed. R. App. P.
   4(a)(4)(B)(ii); Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of Chicago, 138 S. Ct. 13,
   17 (2017). Dominguez does not raise a nonfrivolous issue regarding the
   district court’s failure to hold an evidentiary hearing. See Eason v. Thaler, 14
   F.3d 8, 9 (5th Cir. 1994).      Additionally, Dominguez does not raise a
   nonfrivolous issue regarding the denial of appointed counsel. See Cupit v.
   Jones, 835 F.2d 82, 86 (5th Cir. 1987).
            The magistrate judge ordered officials at the Texas Department of
   Criminal Justice and the University of Texas Medical Branch to review

                                          2
Case: 22-40460       Document: 00516625492          Page: 3   Date Filed: 01/27/2023

                                     No. 22-40460

   Dominguez’s claims and to provide a written report; the officials were
   authorized to interview any potential witnesses, including Dominguez.
   Dominguez contends that the officials failed to comply with the court order
   because they did not interview him. However, the magistrate judge did not
   mandate that such an interview must occur, and the officials provided the
   court with copies of Dominguez’s medical records and an affidavit from a
   medical professional.
            Dominguez does not meaningfully address the district court’s
   conclusion that his claims against the prison warden failed to state a claim
   upon which relief may be granted because he failed to allege or show personal
   involvement in his injuries or the creation of a policy leading to the harm
   suffered. In addition, he does not address the court’s finding that his medical
   records establish a lack of deliberate indifference for his serious medical
   needs. Accordingly, any such challenges are deemed abandoned. See
   Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 844 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.
   1987).
            The appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. See Howard
   v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, the IFP motion is
   DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 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 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). Dominguez 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