Court Opinion

ID: 9892839
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-25 00:00:26.891084+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:47:34.798982
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-40028         Document: 00516943221             Page: 1      Date Filed: 10/24/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________

                                       No. 23-40028
                                      ____________

   Vinicio J. Garcia,

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   Bobby Lumpkin; Warden Townsend; Warden Marshall,

                                               Defendants—Appellees.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Eastern District of Texas
                                USDC No. 6:22-CV-67
                      ______________________________

   Before Jones, Higginson, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Vinicio J. Garcia, Texas prisoner # 1828198, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983
   action, arguing that his constitutional rights were violated when he was
   transferred to an unsanitary cell.             He included additional allegations
   concerning the cell conditions and argued, inter alia, that he was deprived of
   certain property.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-40028     Document: 00516943221              Page: 2   Date Filed: 10/24/2023

                                       No. 23-40028

          The district court dismissed Garcia’s complaint for failure to state a
   claim upon which relief may be granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
   §§ 1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and denied Garcia leave to proceed in
   forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. Garcia now moves this court for leave to
   proceed IFP on appeal.
          By seeking leave to proceed IFP, Garcia is challenging the district
   court’s certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v.
   Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). To obtain IFP status, Garcia must
   demonstrate financial eligibility and a nonfrivolous appellate issue. See
   Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). Garcia has demonstrated
   his financial eligibility, see id., but he has not shown an appellate issue
   concerning the district court’s dismissal of his complaint that is likely to
   prevail. See Woods v. Edwards, 51 F.3d 577, 581 (5th Cir. 1995).
          Although Garcia has alleged deeply unpleasant conditions, his appeal
   does not provide sufficient facts or allegations that would permit him to
   overcome the legal insufficiencies, outlined in the magistrate judge’s
   recommendation and the district court’s opinion, of his 1st Amendment, 8th
   Amendment, and other claims. These insufficiencies include, among others,
   the failure to demonstrate the subjective requirement of prison officials’
   deliberate indifference to his health and safety, acknowledged post-
   deprivation remedies and intervening transfer to a different facility that
   moots certain claims, and the absence of descriptions of injuries tracing to
   the conditions of which he complained. Likewise, Garcia’s requests for video
   preservation of the alleged prison conditions and his generalized allegations
   that rodents might carry hantavirus similarly do not alter the conclusions
   under the law as it stands today.

                                            2
Case: 23-40028     Document: 00516943221          Page: 3   Date Filed: 10/24/2023

                                   No. 23-40028

         Accordingly, we DENY the motion to proceed IFP on appeal. Should
   Garcia wish to proceed, he must pay the requisite filing fee. See Baugh, 117
   F.3d at 202.

                                        3