Court Opinion

ID: 9353527
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-12 01:00:25.138635+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:06:15.763284
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50347        Document: 00516606682             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/11/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                       Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-50347
                                    Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                                                               January 11, 2023
                                                                                Lyle W. Cayce
   Tamir Abdullah,                                                                   Clerk

                                                                   Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   State of Texas; Henry Garza; Sheriff Eddie Lange;
   Killeen Police Department; John Galligan,

                                                                 Defendants—Appellees.

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 6:22-CV-160

   Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Appellant Tamir Abdullah brought the instant case, proceeding pro se
   and in forma pauperis, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges constitutional
   violations committed by his attorney, John Galligan; the State of Texas; the
   Killeen Police Department; the Bell County district attorney, Henry Garza;
   and the Bell County sheriff, Eddie Lange. The district court dismissed

         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50347         Document: 00516606682                Page: 2       Date Filed: 01/11/2023

                                           No. 22-50347

   Abdullah’s suit for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
   Under this section, a district court must dismiss a complaint if it is
   “frivolous,” “malicious,” or “fails to state a claim on which relief may be
   granted.” § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)–(ii).
           We conclude that there was no error in the district court’s dismissal.
   Rather, we agree with the district court that many of Abdullah’s claims are
   plainly precluded. 1 Further, to the extent Abdullah attempts to challenge his
   current detention, that claim is not properly before us. See Preiser v.
   Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 488–90 (1973) (noting that a petition for habeas relief
   is the proper remedy to challenge the facts or duration of confinement).
   Finally, Abdullah’s remaining claim asserting that he was denied adequate
   medical care is similarly meritless. To establish such a claim, Abdullah was
   required to plead that prison officials acted with deliberate indifference to his
   medical needs. 2 See Hare v. City of Corinth, 74 F.3d 633, 636 (5th Cir. 1996)
   (en banc). But “[d]eliberate indifference is an extremely high standard to
   meet.” Domino v. Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Just., 239 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir. 2001).
   It “cannot be inferred merely from a negligent or even a grossly negligent
   response to a substantial risk of serious harm.” Thompson v. Upshur County,

           1
              First, his claim against the State of Texas is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
   Moore v. La. Bd. of Elementary & Secondary Educ., 743 F.3d 959, 963 (5th Cir. 2014). Second,
   he fails to properly plead any allegations supporting a supervisory liability theory against
   Sheriff Lange. See Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 693 (1978). Third, his
   claim against the Killeen Police Department is precluded because the Department is not a
   legal entity capable of being sued. See Darby v. Pasadena Police Dep’t, 939 F.2d 311, 313 (5th
   Cir. 1991). Fourth, District Attorney Garza is immune from suit for actions taken in
   connection with judicial proceedings. See Boyd v. Biggers, 31 F.3d 279, 285 (5th Cir. 1994).
   Finally, Abdullah’s claim against his defense attorney Galligan fails because his attorney is
   not a state actor subject to § 1983 liability. See Mills v. Crim. Dist. Ct. No. 3, 837 F.2d 677,
   679 (5th Cir. 1988).
           2
              To establish deliberate indifference, a plaintiff must plead that “[1] the official
   was aware of facts from which an inference of substantial risk of serious harm could be
   drawn; [2] the official actually drew that inference; and [3] the official’s response indicates
   the official subjectively intended that harm occur.” Thompson v. Upshur County, 245 F.3d
   447, 458–59 (5th Cir. 2001).

                                                  2
Case: 22-50347         Document: 00516606682          Page: 3      Date Filed: 01/11/2023

                                       No. 22-50347

   245 F.3d 447, 459 (5th Cir. 2001). Abdullah has failed to plead any allegations
   which could be construed as establishing deliberate indifference. Thus, this
   claim also fails.
          Abdullah is warned that the district court’s dismissal of his action as
   frivolous counts as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). If Abdullah
   accumulates three strikes, he will not be able to proceed in forma pauperis 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.
          AFFIRMED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED. The motion to
   amend party names is DENIED. 3

          3
             On appeal, Abdullah moved to “amend the names of the parties to this action.”
   The motion seeks to add several previously unnamed defendants. However, Abdullah
   never moved to amend his complaint or add additional parties in the proceedings before
   the district court. His attempt to do so here on appeal then is improper.

                                             3