Court Opinion

ID: 9905744
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-30 01:02:41.737383+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:52.327809
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-40219        Document: 00516982704             Page: 1       Date Filed: 11/29/2023

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

                                      No. 23-40219                         FILED
                                    Summary Calendar               November 29, 2023
                                    ____________                      Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                           Clerk
   Bobby Perez,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Brad Livingston, in his individual capacity; Kevin Moore,
   Warden; Dr. Jessica Khan; Jane Does; John Doe; Sara
   Hancock; Bryan Collier, Executive Director, Texas Department of
   Criminal Justice, in his individual and official capacity; University of
   Texas Medical Branch; Texas Department of Criminal
   Justice; Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal
   Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, in his official capacity,

                                              Defendants—Appellees.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Eastern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 9:19-CV-172
                     ______________________________

   Before Davis, Willett, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-40219         Document: 00516982704               Page: 2      Date Filed: 11/29/2023

                                          No. 23-40219

           Bobby Perez, Texas prisoner # 01117750, appeals the district court’s
   grant of the defendants’ motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil
   Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6) and the concomitant dismissal of his 42 U.S.C.
   § 1983 suit. Review is de novo. Smith v. Hood, 900 F.3d 180, 184 (5th Cir.
   2018). Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) is proper when a claim is barred by
   immunity. See id. at 184-85. Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is proper when a
   complaint fails “to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R.
   Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Perez shows no error in connection with the district
   court’s judgment.
           Because the record supports Perez’s assertion that he sued the
   defendants in their official capacities only,1 we agree that the district court
   should not have considered personal capacity claims and qualified
   immunity;2 we thus decline to review the district court’s determinations as
   to these issues. Perez cites nothing showing that the defendants waived their
   Eleventh Amendment immunity with respect to § 1983 suits for money
   damages and thus shows no error in the district court’s dismissal of his § 1983
   claims for pecuniary relief. See Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58,
   66, 71 (1989); Talib v. Gilley, 138 F.3d 211, 213 (5th Cir. 1998); Lewis v.
   UTMB, 665 F.3d 625, 630 (5th Cir. 2011).
           Similarly, Perez shows no error in connection with the district court’s
   conclusion that he had not shown actionable claims under the Americans

           _____________________
           1
             On appeal, Perez asserts that the district court “misconstrued” his complaint as
   raising claims against the defendants in their personal capacities and clarifies that
   “Defendants have been sued in their official capacities and are therefore representing their
   respective state agencies.” Similarly, in his “Amended Supplemental Complaint” Perez
   specifies in several places that he is suing the defendants in their official capacities.
           2
            See Hernandez v. Spencer, 780 F.2d 504, 506 (5th Cir. 1986) (noting that a plaintiff
   “is the master of his pleadings and, subject to the requirements of Rule 11, . . . may include
   in them whatever claims he wishes”).

                                                 2
Case: 23-40219      Document: 00516982704          Page: 3   Date Filed: 11/29/2023

                                    No. 23-40219

   with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act because those laws do not set
   forth standards of care for prisoners, nor are they infringed by a prison’s not
   providing medical treatment to prisoners. See Hale v. Harrison Cty. Bd. of
   Sup’rs, 8 F.4th 399, 404 n.† (5th Cir. 2021); Frame v. City of Arlington, 657
   F.3d 215, 223-24 (5th Cir. 2011) (en banc); Pace v. Bogalusa City Sch. Bd., 403
   F.3d 272, 287-88 (5th Cir. 2005). Insofar as he contends that the district
   court erred by rejecting some of his claims under the doctrine of res judicata,
   he is mistaken, as the record shows that none of his claims were dismissed
   pursuant to this theory. Finally, because he has not shown that his case
   presents extraordinary circumstances, we will not appoint counsel in this
   appeal. See Delaughter v. Woodall, 909 F.3d 130, 140-41 (5th Cir. 2018). The
   judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED, and the motion for appointed
   counsel is DENIED.

                                         3