Court Opinion

ID: 9841502
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-22 18:00:29.922005+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:30.008080
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-11239    Document: 00516905196       Page: 1    Date Filed: 09/22/2023

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit                             United States Court of Appeals
                                                                           Fifth Circuit
                              ____________                               FILED
                                                                 September 22, 2023
                                No. 21-11239
                              ____________                          Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                         Clerk
   Marcus Maxwell,

                                                        Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                    versus

   Robert Almanza, Jr., Major of Correctional Officers-French Robertson
   Unit; Carmen Walker, LVN-Hendrick Medical Center; John #1
   Doe, Correctional Officer-French Robertson Unit; John #2 Doe,
   Correctional Officer-French Robertson Unit; Christopher Schmidt,
   Lieutenant of Correctional Officers; Alan W. Merchant, Captain of
   Correctional Officers-French Robertson Unit; Clayton J. Arendall,
   Captain of Correctional Officers-French Robertson Unit; John Doe, Unit
   Grievance Investigator #2553-French Robertson Unit; Charles L.
   Branton, Sergeant; Peyton W. Mcintire, Sergeant; Karla K.
   Sadler, Major; Reyes, Sergeant; S. Sullivan, Unit Grievance
   Investigator; Samantha D. Adams, Sergeant; Porter, Lieutenant;
   Corey L. Layne, Lieutenant; Cory G. Clinkinbeard, Sergeant;
   Desma M. Holguin, Sergeant; Ricky A. Villanueva, Captain,

                                          Defendants—Appellees.
                 ______________________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Texas
                           USDC No. 1:18-CV-179
                 ______________________________
Case: 21-11239          Document: 00516905196             Page: 2        Date Filed: 09/22/2023

                                           No. 21-11239

   Before Jones, Stewart, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
           Marcus Maxwell, a pro se Texas inmate, sued nineteen officials at the
   Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) Robertson Unit in Abilene,
   Texas under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that these officials committed
   numerous constitutional violations against him. At preliminary screening,
   the magistrate judge dismissed most of Maxwell’s claims as frivolous and/or
   for failure to state a claim. On appeal, Maxwell argues his excessive force and
   sexual assault claims were erroneously dismissed. For the reasons explained
   below, we AFFIRM.1
                                                 I.
           Maxwell alleges that TDCJ officials violated his constitutional rights
   in numerous ways, all of which need not be recited here. Because Maxwell is
   a pro se prisoner, his claims were subject to preliminary screening under 28
   U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A. The magistrate judge2 held a Spears
   evidentiary hearing and reviewed prison and medical records submitted by
   the TDCJ.3 Maxwell’s inhumane conditions of confinement claim and one of
   his deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claims survived

           _____________________
           *
               This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
           1
               We also deny Maxwell’s motion to appoint counsel.
           2
               Maxwell consented to proceed before a magistrate judge.
           3
             A Spears hearing, which we authorized in Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th
   Cir. 1985), is an “evidentiary hearing in the nature of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e) motion for
   more definite statement.” Eason v. Holt, 73 F.3d 600, 602 (5th Cir. 1996). Its purpose is
   “to flesh out the allegations of a prisoner’s complaint to determine whether in forma
   pauperis status is warranted or whether the complaint, lacking an arguable basis in law or
   fact, should be dismissed summarily as malicious or frivolous.” Ibid.

                                                 2
Case: 21-11239        Document: 00516905196              Page: 3      Date Filed: 09/22/2023

                                         No. 21-11239

   preliminary screening, but the magistrate judge dismissed Maxwell’s other
   claims as frivolous and/or for failure to state a claim.
           On appeal, Maxwell focuses on his claims that officials subjected him
   to excessive force and sexually assaulted him in February 2019.4 These claims
   stem from Maxwell’s return to the Robertson Unit after an off-site medical
   appointment at which he had a catheter placed. Upon his return, Maxwell
   was walking down a hallway with Sergeant Peyton McIntire. When the two
   turned a corner, they encountered an unnamed officer. At that point,
   Maxwell abruptly stopped walking. He says he did so because “you don’t
   want to get too close to an officer.” Maxwell claims that his sudden stop
   pulled on his catheter, causing him pain, and he sat down to alleviate it. The
   unnamed officer ordered Maxwell to stand up. Maxwell claims he told the
   officer that he could not do so because of the pain from his catheter. When
   Maxwell did not comply, the officer “grabbed” Maxwell. He attempted to
   place Maxwell’s hands in restraints, but Maxwell resisted and moved his
   hands into his pants. Sergeant McIntire, Sergeant Charles Branton, and
   several other officers then worked together to force Maxwell into a prone
   position. Maxwell claims he was struck several times in the process. The
   officers then moved Maxwell to a cell.
           Prison records—whose veracity Maxwell does not contest—indicate
   that the officials believed at this point that Maxwell was hiding contraband.
   So, once in the cell, the officials told Maxwell that they were searching for
   contraband, and they removed his clothes. Sergeant Branton performed a
   cavity search, inserting his finger into Maxwell’s anus for two to three
   seconds. While Maxwell initially also contended that the officers pulled the
           _____________________
           4
              For reasons explained below, Maxwell’s passing arguments about other claims
   are forfeited as inadequately briefed. So, we need not set forth the factual backgrounds of
   those claims.

                                               3
Case: 21-11239      Document: 00516905196           Page: 4    Date Filed: 09/22/2023

                                     No. 21-11239

   catheter out of him during their search, he admits on appeal that they did not
   do so, as medical records from Maxwell’s examination immediately after this
   incident indicate the catheter was still in place. The officers’ search for
   contraband revealed a pen Maxwell was hiding in his waistband.
          Maxwell did not suffer any serious injuries from the incident. He
   claims he sustained “cuts and bruises” to his face and an injury to his wrist.
   While Maxwell contends that TDCJ officials refused his requests for medical
   attention, this is belied by his admission that he underwent a medical
   examination shortly after the incident. Notwithstanding this admission—and
   apparently for the first time on appeal—Maxwell claims that he had to set his
   cell on fire to receive medical attention.
          Along with many of Maxwell’s claims not relevant here, the
   magistrate judge dismissed Maxwell’s excessive force and sexual assault
   claims as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. The magistrate judge
   concluded that Maxwell’s allegations failed to state an excessive force claim
   because TDCJ officials described only good faith efforts “to subdue him and
   restore order.” As for Maxwell’s sexual assault claim, the magistrate judge
   concluded that, even assuming Sergeant Branton’s action was not a
   legitimate cavity search, it was still too brief a contact to be actionable under
   the Eighth Amendment. Finding “no just reason for delay,” the magistrate
   judge entered partial final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
   54(b). Maxwell appealed.
                                         II.
          We review a dismissal of claims as frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)
   for abuse of discretion. Green v. Atkinson, 623 F.3d 278, 279–80 (5th Cir.
   2010). While “[t]his court’s precedent is inconsistent as to whether a
   § 1915A(b)(1) dismissal is reviewed de novo or for abuse of discretion,”
   Morris v. McAllester, 702 F.3d 187, 189 (5th Cir. 2012), we need not resolve

                                          4
Case: 21-11239      Document: 00516905196           Page: 5    Date Filed: 09/22/2023

                                     No. 21-11239

   that issue here, as Maxwell’s appeal fails under either standard. A complaint
   is frivolous if it has no “arguable basis in fact or law.” Ibid. Meanwhile, we
   review a dismissal for failure to state claim under §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and
   1915A(b) de novo. In doing so, we “accept all well-pleaded facts as true and
   view those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Whitley v. Hanna,
   726 F.3d 631, 637 (5th Cir. 2013). In addition, we consider testimony from
   the Spears hearing, as well as authenticated medical and prison records.
   Wilson v. Barrientos, 926 F.2d 480, 482–84 (5th Cir. 1991). But such records
   may not be used to refute the plaintiff’s allegations or resolve disputed facts.
   See Williams v. Luna, 909 F.2d 121, 124 (5th Cir. 1990); Cardona v. Taylor,
   828 F. App’x 198, 202 (5th Cir. 2020) (per curiam).
                                         III.
          On appeal, Maxwell argues that he adequately pled excessive force
   and sexual assault claims stemming from the February 2019 incident, and
   that the magistrate judge wrongly dismissed them. None of the defendants
   involved in those events filed a response. See Hager v. DBG Partners, Inc., 903
   F.3d 460, 464 (5th Cir. 2018) (explaining that an appellee’s failure to file a
   brief “does not preclude our consideration of the merits”) (citing Fed. R.
   App. P. 31(c))).
                                          A.
          We consider Maxwell’s excessive force claim first. The Eighth
   Amendment forbids prison officials from applying force against inmates that
   amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S.
   1, 5–7 (1992). When considering whether force is excessive—and therefore
   unconstitutional—“the core judicial inquiry is . . . whether force was applied
   in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and
   sadistically to cause harm.” Id. at 7. An excessive force claim has both
   subjective and objective components. See, e.g., Mosley v. White, 464 F. App’x

                                          5
Case: 21-11239      Document: 00516905196          Page: 6   Date Filed: 09/22/2023

                                    No. 21-11239

   206, 211–12 (5th Cir. 2010) (per curiam). “The subjective component
   requires the plaintiff to establish that the defendant acted maliciously and
   sadistically in an ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.’” Id. at 211
   (quoting Hudson 503 U.S. at 8). The objective component, meanwhile,
   requires the plaintiff to establish that “the alleged wrongdoing was
   objectively ‘harmful enough to establish a constitutional violation.’” Ibid.
          Nothing in Maxwell’s allegations or Spears testimony suggests that
   the officers acted “maliciously and sadistically in an unnecessary and wanton
   infliction of pain.” Ibid. Rather, the officers’ actions responded to Maxwell’s
   disruptive, non-compliant behavior. The officers also acted on their belief
   that Maxwell was hiding contraband—and their suspicions were vindicated
   when they discovered the pen concealed in Maxwell’s waistband.
          Even if, as Maxwell alleges, he told the officers he could not comply
   with their orders because of his catheter, their decision to move him to a
   prone position was not malicious or sadistic under the circumstances. See
   Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7. The officers would have had no way of knowing
   whether Maxwell was telling the truth. Prison officials often find themselves
   in rapidly developing situations that require them to make split-second
   decisions to maintain discipline and to protect both inmates and themselves.
   They are thus “entitled to wide-ranging deference.” Baldwin v. Stadler, 137
   F.3d 836, 840 (5th Cir. 1998). Under the facts alleged by Maxwell, the
   officers’ actions to quickly subdue him represented “a good-faith effort to
   maintain or restore discipline,” and were neither malicious nor sadistic.
   Hudson, 503 U.S. at 6.
                                         B.
          Next, we consider Maxwell’s claim that Sergeant Branton sexually
   assaulted him by performing a cavity search. The magistrate judge
   considered this contention under the Eighth Amendment because Maxwell

                                         6
Case: 21-11239      Document: 00516905196           Page: 7   Date Filed: 09/22/2023

                                     No. 21-11239

   described it as an assault rather than a search. But notwithstanding
   Maxwell’s characterization, “[o]n a liberal reading . . . we take [Maxwell] to
   allege an unreasonable search that sounds under the Fourth Amendment,
   which provides the proper analysis under our precedent for challenges to
   prison searches.” Parker v. Woods, 834 F. App’x 92, 95 (5th Cir. 2020) (per
   curiam). “The Fourth Amendment . . . requires that ‘searches or seizures
   conducted on prisoners must be reasonable under all the facts and
   circumstances in which they are performed.’” Elliot v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191
   (5th Cir. 1994) (quoting United States v. Lilly, 576 F.2d 1240, 1244 (5th Cir.
   1978)).
          Maxwell’s chief contention on appeal is that Sergeant Branton “had
   no legitimate reason for a cavity search.” Maxwell claims that he had been
   “fully” searched prior to leaving his cell for his initial medical appointment
   at which the catheter was placed, and that he had been accompanied by a
   prison official at all times thereafter. But according to Maxwell’s testimony
   at the Spears hearing, he had never received a cavity search before the one
   performed by Sergeant Branton. So, whatever search Maxwell had received
   before leaving his cell evidently did not include a cavity search.
          Moreover, even if Maxwell had been subject to a complete search
   before his appointment, it would not have been unreasonable under the
   circumstances for the officers to search him again. “Because a prison
   administrator’s decisions and actions in the prison context are entitled to
   great deference from the courts, the burden of proving reasonableness is a
   light burden.” Elliot, 38 F.3d at 191. After all, “[a] detention facility is a
   unique place fraught with serious security dangers. Smuggling of money,
   drugs, weapons, and other contraband is all too common an occurrence.” Bell
   v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 559 (1979). “Something as simple as an overlooked
   pen can pose a significant danger.” Florence v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders of
   Cnty. of Burlington, 566 U.S. 318, 333 (2012). So, “[t]he Supreme Court has

                                          7
Case: 21-11239        Document: 00516905196             Page: 8      Date Filed: 09/22/2023

                                         No. 21-11239

   squarely recognized that prison officials have a ‘serious responsibility’ to
   make sure inmates do not conceal such potentially lethal items on, or in, their
   bodies.” Parker, 834 F. App’x at 96 (quoting Florence, 566 U.S. at 332). When
   an inmate exhibits non-compliant, disruptive behavior that reasonably leads
   an official to believe he may be hiding contraband, we will not second-guess
   the official’s decision to promptly search the inmate—even if the inmate was
   recently searched.
           Furthermore, the cavity search here was not unreasonable. It lasted
   only two to three seconds, so it was not “unduly lengthy.” Ibid. It was
   performed in the privacy of Maxwell’s cell and was not conducted in a
   “humiliating and degrading manner.” Id. at 97 (quoting Elliott, 38 F.3d at
   191). While “some circuits have distinguished purely visual searches from
   those that involve varying degrees of touching or intrusion,” the touching or
   intrusion here “was incident to a legitimate body cavity search.” Id. at 96.
   Especially given Maxwell’s noncompliance with the officers’ prior orders, it
   was not unreasonable for Sergeant Branton to conduct the cavity search
   directly rather than by “instruct[ing]” Maxwell to “move or spread [his]
   buttocks” so that Sergeant Branton could perform the search visually.
   Florence, 566 U.S. at 325.
           In sum, the cavity search performed on Maxwell satisfies the “light
   burden” necessary to “prov[e] reasonableness.” Elliot, 38 F.3d at 191.5 That
   the officers’ search as a whole revealed that Maxwell was in fact hiding a pen
   in his waistband—though not dispositive—adds an exclamation point to our
   conclusion. See Florence, 566 U.S. at 333.

           _____________________
           5
              Because we conclude that there was no underlying unreasonable search by
   Sergeant Branton, we need not address Maxwell’s claims of bystander liability against the
   other officers.

                                              8
Case: 21-11239        Document: 00516905196             Page: 9      Date Filed: 09/22/2023

                                         No. 21-11239

                                             C.
           Maxwell also contends, in conclusory fashion, that he adequately
   alleged Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs
   and Fourteenth Amendment due process violations by the officers in the
   aftermath of the February 2019 incident. An appellant forfeits an argument
   “by failing to adequately brief the argument on appeal.” Rollins v. Home
   Depot USA, 8 F.4th 393, 397 (5th Cir. 2021). “To be adequate, a brief must
   ‘address the district court’s analysis and explain how it erred.’” Sec. & Exch.
   Comm’n v. Hallam, 42 F.4th 316, 327 (5th Cir. 2022) (quoting Rollins, 8 F.4th
   at 397 n.1). “Although we liberally construe briefs of pro se litigants and apply
   less stringent standards to parties proceeding pro se than to parties
   represented by counsel, pro se parties must still brief the issues and reasonably
   comply with the standards of [Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure] Rule
   28.” Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995). Maxwell wholly fails
   to contend with the magistrate judge’s thorough reasons for dismissing these
   deliberate indifference and due process claims. Accordingly, his arguments
   as to these claims are forfeited.6
                                             IV.
           The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

           _____________________
           6
            To the degree that Maxwell mentions other claims not discussed in this opinion,
   those arguments are forfeited as well. The same is true of Maxwell’s claim that the
   magistrate judge wrongly resolved disputed facts in the appellees’ favor, as Maxwell does
   not say what he believes those disputed facts are.

                                              9