Court Opinion

ID: 9392763
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-06 00:00:43.323103+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:48.629178
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-20241     Document: 00516740422        Page: 1    Date Filed: 05/05/2023

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

                               ____________                             FILED
                                                                     May 5, 2023
                                 No. 21-20241
                                                                   Lyle W. Cayce
                               ____________                             Clerk

   Albert L. Thompson, Jr.,

                                                          Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                      versus

   Texas Department of Criminal Justice; Warden
   Sanchez; Lieutenant Crawford,

                                           Defendants—Appellees.
                  ______________________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Texas
                           USDC No. 4:18-CV-4059
                  ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Southwick, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
   Patrick E. Higginbotham, Circuit Judge:
         Albert Thompson suffered a stroke during his incarceration at a Texas
   prison. He brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that prison staff
   delayed and impeded his access to emergency medical care after the onset of
   his stroke symptoms. The district court dismissed his lawsuit as frivolous
   under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). We determine that Thompson brings
   claims of malpractice, falling short of a deprivation of constitutionally
   secured rights. We AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal with a
Case: 21-20241          Document: 00516740422             Page: 2      Date Filed: 05/05/2023

                                          No. 21-20241

   LIMITED REMAND instructing the district court to address
   Thompson’s motion to unseal his medical records.
                                                I.
          Thompson alleges that he suffered a brain stem stroke at
   approximately 10:30 a.m. on January 11, 2017, while residing at a Texas state
   prison, that at 10:45 a.m. he told medical staff at the prison’s clinic about his
   symptoms, including difficulty swallowing, and that clinic nurses took
   Thompson’s vitals and examined him but found nothing unusual. The nurses
   then told him he was “faking” and ordered him to leave the clinic.
   Thompson returned to his dormitory, where his condition worsened, other
   inmates took notice, and an inmate called Thompson’s sister. Thompson
   returned to the clinic at 1:30 p.m. complaining of a “stiffening” face,
   weakness, and disorientation. When he again requested assistance, medical
   staff told him he had already been evaluated and allegedly threatened him
   with a disciplinary case if he did not return to his unit. Thompson’s sister
   called the prison repeatedly between 2:25 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., reaching
   several prison staff members and notifying them of Thompson’s condition.
   When Thompson returned to the clinic for the third time, a nurse examined
   him and again found nothing abnormal. Medical staff placed him in a holding
   cell for a further hour and a half without further treatment.
          After Thompson returned to the clinic, an unknown party called 911, 1
   and an ambulance arrived at the prison at approximately 8:40 p.m. Prison
   staff told the arriving emergency medical technicians (“EMTs”) that
   Thompson had already received care and continued to accuse him of faking
   symptoms, but the EMTs insisted on evaluating him. The EMTs determined
   that Thompson required hospitalization and departed without him around
          _____________________
          1
              Thompson’s complaint implies that his sister placed the call.

                                                     2
Case: 21-20241           Document: 00516740422              Page: 3       Date Filed: 05/05/2023

                                            No. 21-20241

   9:15 p.m. A prison vehicle transported Thompson to a local hospital at 10:50
   p.m. after he spent another hour and a half in the clinic’s holding cell.
           At the hospital, Thompson was diagnosed with a brain stem stroke
   and severe dehydration, as he had been unable to swallow liquids for more
   than 24 hours. He remained hospitalized for several weeks. Thompson
   alleges that the 12-hour delay in emergency medical care resulted in central
   post-stroke pain, neuropathic nerve issues on his right side, facial
   disfigurement on his left side, and a fall due to dehydration, among other
   consequences.
           Thompson filed a pro se, in forma pauperis lawsuit against prison
   medical staff, guards, supervisors, and various state entities. 2 The district
   court construed Thompson’s suit as a § 1983 claim for denial of adequate
   medical treatment. He also challenged the prison’s grievance system and
   failure to follow state rules and regulations, but he abandoned these issues on
   appeal.3 The district court accepted a more definite statement of
   Thompson’s claim but did not conduct a Spears hearing.4 Texas also
   provided a Martinez report,5 although its record begins at approximately 9:00
   p.m. on July 11 and focused on the standard of care provided to Thompson at

           _____________________
           2
             Thompson also sued several state entities that enjoy sovereign immunity in
   federal court under the Eleventh Amendment. See Aguilar v. Texas Dep’t of Crim. Just., 160
   F.3d 1052, 1054 (5th Cir. 1998). We therefore do not further address his claims against
   Texas state agencies on appeal.
           3
               See Roy v. City of Monroe, 950 F.3d 245, 251 (5th Cir. 2020).
           4
             “The purpose of a Spears hearing is to determine whether [in forma pauperis]
   status should be granted or the case should be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).”
   Wilson v. Barrientos, 926 F.2d 480, 481 n.2 (5th Cir. 1991).
           5
             A district court may obtain a Martinez report from the state “to further flesh out
   the facts behind a prisoner’s complaint” at the screening or dismissal stage. Davis v.
   Lumpkin, 35 F.4th 958, 963 (5th Cir. 2022).

                                                       3
Case: 21-20241           Document: 00516740422               Page: 4     Date Filed: 05/05/2023

                                              No. 21-20241

   the hospital. Although Thompson asked the district court to order a reply,
   the defendants have yet to answer his complaint.6
           Proceeding under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), the district court dismissed as
   frivolous in forma pauperis filings, finding that Thompson received adequate
   medical care after transportation to the hospital and determining that
   Thompson’s claims summed to negligence, not to a constitutional tort; that
   Thompson did not allege facts demonstrating that the defendants—neither
   staff nor supervisors—were aware of and disregarded a substantial risk of
   harm to him. Thompson appeals, arguing that the district court (1) erred in
   resolving disputed facts during screening; (2) erred in concluding that he
   failed to state a claim; (3) erred in determining that the warden and medical
   director were not liable as supervisors; and (4) abused its discretion in failing
   to rule on pending motions.7
                                                  II.
           A district court may dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint under
   § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) “if it has no arguable basis in law or fact.” 8 We have held
   that “[a] complaint lacks an arguable basis in law if it is based on an
   indisputably meritless legal theory, such as if the complaint alleges the
   violation of a legal interest which clearly does not exist.”9 This court will
   “review the dismissal of a complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) as

           _____________________
           6
               See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2).
           7
            We liberally construe Thompson’s pro se brief. See Andrade v. Gonzales, 459 F.3d
   538, 543 (5th Cir. 2006). This court did not require the defendants to file a response to
   Thompson’s brief on appeal.
           8
               Ruiz v. United States, 160 F.3d 273, 274–75 (5th Cir. 1998).
           9
               Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997).

                                                        4
Case: 21-20241           Document: 00516740422                Page: 5      Date Filed: 05/05/2023

                                             No. 21-20241

   frivolous for abuse of discretion.”10 “A trial court abuses its discretion when
   its ruling is based on an erroneous view of the law or a clearly erroneous
   assessment of the evidence.”11 Because a district court must find a claim
   insufficient before holding it frivolous, this deferential review does not
   necessarily insulate a district court’s determination that the in forma pauperis
   plaintiff failed to state a claim, as that is a pure question of law.12
           A district court may obtain a Martinez report to frame its evaluation
   of a prisoner’s in forma pauperis claim. “A Martinez report is produced as a
   result of prison officials’ investigating the prisoner’s complaints and
   compiling an administrative record that acts like an affidavit to aid the district
   court in screening the complaint.”13 The report serves only to “sort and
   clarify issues raised in a pro se complaint.”14 We recently held in Davis v.
   Lumpkin that “if the Martinez report conflicts with the pro se plaintiff’s
   allegations, the district court must accept the plaintiff’s allegations as true,
   not the records in the report.”15

           _____________________
           10
                Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373 (5th Cir. 2005).
           11
              United States v. Yanez Sosa, 513 F.3d 194, 200 (5th Cir. 2008) (quoting United
   States v. Ragsdale, 426 F.3d 765, 774 (5th Cir. 2005)).
           12
               Black v. Warren, 134 F.3d 732, 734 (5th Cir. 1998) (“We . . . employ the same de
   novo standard to review the § 1915(e)(B)(ii) dismissal as we use to review dismissal
   pursuant to 12(b)(6).”); Fernandez-Montes v. Allied Pilots Ass’n, 987 F.2d 278, 284 n.9 (5th
   Cir. 1993) (“The dismissal of a complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is a question of
   law.”); accord Edwards v. Snyder, 478 F.3d 827, 830 (7th Cir. 2007) (observing that “[e]n
   route to determining that a claim is frivolous, the district court must determine whether it
   is legally insufficient, an issue purely of law on which appellate review is plenary” (quoting
   Billman v. Ind. Dep’t of Corr., 56 F.3d 785, 787 (7th Cir. 1995))).
           13
                Davis, 35 F.4th at 963 (citations omitted).
           14
                Id. at 964 (quoting Janke v. Price, 43 F.3d 1390, 1392 (10th Cir. 1994)).
           15
                Id.

                                                       5
Case: 21-20241         Document: 00516740422               Page: 6      Date Filed: 05/05/2023

                                          No. 21-20241

           Thompson argues that the district court erred in resolving various
   contested facts based on the Martinez report. Thompson’s complaint alleges
   that medical staff evaluated him but provided no medical interventions prior
   to transportation to the hospital, facts that must be taken as true at this stage
   of litigation.16 The district court relied on the “more complete record” in the
   Martinez report to elucidate details about these medical evaluations, but we
   find nothing in the district court’s opinion that contradicts the claims in
   Thompson’s initial pleadings. The district court did not, for example, find
   that the prison nurses provided medical care that Thompson insists never
   took place. And Thompson agrees that he received significant medical care
   following his stroke diagnosis.17
           The law is “clearly established that a prison inmate [can] demonstrate
   an Eighth Amendment violation by showing that a prison official ‘refused to
   treat him, ignored his complaints, intentionally treated him incorrectly, or
   engaged in any similar conduct that would clearly evince a wanton disregard
   for any serious medical needs.’”18 The plaintiff must allege “a deprivation of

           _____________________
           16
              Thompson alleges that the district court resolved other facts against him, such
   as the sufficiency of his care prior to transport or the harm he suffered. The district court
   did not resolve these allegations based on the Martinez report, but rather relied on the facts
   in Thompson’s complaint to determine that he failed to state a claim.
           17
              The district court observed as much, noting that “Thompson establishes much
   of this by his own admission, acknowledging that he received treatment for his stroke.”
           18
             Easter v. Powell, 467 F.3d 459, 464 (5th Cir. 2006) (quoting Domino v. Tex. Dep’t
   of Crim. Just., 239 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir. 2001)); see also Austin v. Johnson, 328 F.3d 204,
   210 (5th Cir. 2003) (“Since Estelle v. Gamble . . . state officers have been on notice that
   deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical needs violates the Eighth
   Amendment.”). Our sister circuit has commented that “[a] sufficiently serious medical
   need is one that has been diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or one that is so
   obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor’s
   attention.” Helphenstine v. Lewis County, Kentucky, 60 F.4th 305, 318 (6th Cir. 2023)
   (quoting Griffith v. Franklin County, Kentucky, 975 F.3d 554, 567 (6th Cir. 2020)).

                                                     6
Case: 21-20241            Document: 00516740422              Page: 7      Date Filed: 05/05/2023

                                             No. 21-20241

   medical care sufficiently serious to show that ‘the state has abdicated a
   constitutionally-required responsibility to attend to his medical needs.’”19
   To amount to a constitutional violation, delayed medical treatment must
   result from deliberate indifference that harms the prisoner.20
           Deliberate indifference exists when an “official knows of and
   disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.”21 The required
   mental state amounts to “subjective recklessness,” 22 “a question of fact
   subject to demonstration in the usual ways, including inference from
   circumstantial evidence.”23 And “[u]nder exceptional circumstances, a
   prison official’s knowledge of a substantial risk of harm may be inferred by
   the obviousness of the substantial risk.”24 Negligence and mistakes during
   treatment do not constitute deliberate indifference. 25 A supervisory official
   may be held liable under § 1983 for a subordinate’s actions in some
   circumstances, but that supervisor must also show deliberate indifference to

           _____________________
           19
             Harris v. Hegmann, 198 F.3d 153, 159 (5th Cir. 1999) (quoting Bienvenu v.
   Beauregard Parish Police Jury, 705 F.2d 1457, 1460 (5th Cir. 1983)).
           20
                Mendoza v. Lynaugh, 989 F.2d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1993).
           21
                Farmer v. Brennan, 511 US 825, 837 (1994).
           22
                Id. at 839.
           23
                Id. at 842.
           24
                Reeves v Collins, 27 F3d 174, 176 (5th Cir 1994) (citation omitted).
           25
             Farmer, 511 US at 835; Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105 (1976) (“An accident,
   although it may produce added anguish, is not on that basis alone to be characterized as
   wanton infliction of unnecessary pain.”); Gibbs v. Grimmette, 254 F.3d 545, 549 (5th Cir.
   2001).

                                                       7
Case: 21-20241           Document: 00516740422             Page: 8          Date Filed: 05/05/2023

                                           No. 21-20241

   a harmful failure to train or supervise.26 We have observed that “[d]eliberate
   indifference is an extremely high standard to meet.”27
          We have held, for example, that deliberate indifference did not exist
   where medical staff declined to provide a tuberculin skin test to an inmate
   who was later found to have tuberculosis.28 The staff in that case lacked the
   required knowledge of a substantial risk, as prison policy disfavored
   asymptomatic tests and medical staff did not know of any active cases of
   tuberculosis.29 In another case, we held that a doctor’s failure to discover a
   patient’s ulcer during treatment did not amount to deliberate indifference
   because medical staff did not disregard any known risks to the prisoner.30 In
   a case resolved on summary judgment, we concluded that a prison
   psychiatrist did not disregard a risk when he incorrectly concluded that a
   prisoner was not a suicide risk while providing mental health services.31 We
   also found no deliberate indifference where a prisoner received extensive but
   ineffective medical treatment related to his leg infection.32
          In contrast, we reversed a dismissal for frivolousness where the
   prisoner reported a broken jaw to nursing staff, who refused care and
   scheduled a future appointment with the prison doctor.33 Prison medical staff
   then declined for a week to examine the prisoner or address painful

          _____________________
          26
               Smith v. Brenoettsy, 158 F.3d 908, 911–12 (5th Cir. 1998).
          27
               Domino, 239 F.3d at 756.
          28
               Gibbs, 254 F.3d at 551.
          29
               Id. at 550.
          30
               See Stewart v. Murphy, 174 F.3d 530, 534, 537 (5th Cir. 1999).
          31
               Domino, 239 F.3d at 756.
          32
               See Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 351 (5th Cir 2006).
          33
               Harris, 198 F.3d at 154.

                                                      8
Case: 21-20241           Document: 00516740422           Page: 9   Date Filed: 05/05/2023

                                          No. 21-20241

   symptoms arising from his recent surgery.34 We held that the plaintiff stated
   a claim based on his assertion that the defendants “ignored his urgent and
   repeated requests for immediate medical treatment for his broken jaw and his
   complaints of excruciating pain,” and that the defendants were “made aware
   of, and disregarded, a substantial risk to [the prisoner’s] health when they
   denied him treatment.”35 In another case, we found the standard satisfied
   with allegations that a nurse “refused to provide any treatment to, and
   ignored the complaints of, a patient suffering from severe chest pain that she
   knew had a history of cardiac problems.”36 In addition, “failure to call an
   ambulance for almost two hours while [a prisoner] lay unconscious and
   vomiting rises to the level of deliberate indifference” given the obvious
   nature of the risk.37
          We first address whether Thompson successfully claims that any
   defendants knew of a substantial risk of harm to him. The pleadings indicate
   that several defendants may have known of a health risk. Thompson
   reportedly informed Nurse Speer of his symptoms in the morning, when
   Nurse Hampton was also present. In the evening, he visited the clinic again
   and told Nurse Adewoye about his symptoms. The pleadings lack facts,
   however, indicating that other defendants subjectively knew of a risk to
   Thompson’s health. Thompson faults Officer George and Nurse Bercauter,
   who staffed the clinic during the afternoon. But the pleadings show that
   Bercauter relied on Speer’s earlier examination to conclude that there was

          _____________________
          34
               Id. at 155.
          35
               Id. at 159–60.
          36
               Easter, 467 F.3d at 464.
          37
               Austin, 328 F.3d at 210.

                                                   9
Case: 21-20241          Document: 00516740422            Page: 10     Date Filed: 05/05/2023

                                          No. 21-20241

   “nothing wrong” with Thompson, meaning that Bercauter and George
   lacked the requisite mens rea.38
           Thompson also does not allege facts indicating that any supervisors
   had knowledge of a health risk left unaddressed by staff. Thompson only
   alleges, for example, that Dr. Hulipas, the facility’s medical director, “was
   made aware of plaintiff’s condition, or should have been made aware, per
   TDCJ’s emergency care protocol.” But such allegations fall short of facts
   demonstrating that supervisors knew of a substantial risk of harm to
   Thompson. And Thompson fails to put forward facts indicating that the
   facility’s supervisors engaged recklessly in relation to broader training and
   supervision of staff.39
           We next ask whether any defendant with subjective knowledge of the
   risk to Thompson disregarded that risk. Thompson states that Speer listened
   to his complaints and examined him but found no emergency medical issues.
   Adewoye also examined Thompson and found no abnormalities, theorizing
   instead that he may have been experiencing psychiatric symptoms. Medical
   staff failed to properly diagnose Thompson’s medical emergency in these
   evaluations, but they did not disregard Thompson’s reported symptoms.
   There is no indication in the pleadings that medical staff continued to
   recognize a risk of harm to Thompson following these evaluations, or that
   staff would have declined medical care had they recognized his condition as
   requiring activation of emergency protocols.
           We conclude that Thompson’s claim arises to medical negligence, not
   deliberate indifference. Any officials who knew of a risk to Thompson acted

           _____________________
           38
              Officer Yaya was in a similar position, with Thompson admitting that he “chose
   to defer to medical staff.”
           39
                Smith, 158 F.3d at 912.

                                                  10
Case: 21-20241          Document: 00516740422               Page: 11    Date Filed: 05/05/2023

                                           No. 21-20241

   on their concerns. Under the facts alleged, medical staff likely should have
   identified Thompson’s emergency medical issue but failed to do so. Yet as
   the Supreme Court has explained, “an official’s failure to alleviate a
   significant risk that he should have perceived but did not, while no cause for
   commendation, cannot under our cases be condemned” as deliberate
   indifference and does not arise to a constitutional violation.40
                                               III.
           Thompson additionally claims that the district court abused its
   discretion in failing to rule on four motions pending at the time of dismissal,
   including a motion to appoint counsel, a motion for leave to file a second
   amended complaint, an amended motion to strike, and a motion to unseal.
   Because the district court did rule on remaining motions in its dismissal
   order, we construe Thompson’s argument as challenging the district court’s
   reasons, or lack thereof, for dismissing the motions. We review each of these
   motions for abuse of discretion.41
           This court has stated that “[a] § 1983 plaintiff, even if demonstrably
   indigent, is not entitled to appointed counsel as a matter of right.”42 An
   indigent plaintiff must first demonstrate that the claims raised meet “a
   threshold        level    of    plausibility”      and     then     show    “exceptional

           _____________________
           40
                Farmer, 511 U.S. at 838.
           41
              Baranowski v. Hart, 486 F.3d 112, 126 (5th Cir. 2007) (motion to appoint
   counsel); Marucci Sports, L.L.C. v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 751 F.3d 368, 378 (5th
   Cir. 2014) (motion to amend); Cambridge Toxicology Grp., Inc. v. Exnicios, 495 F.3d 169, 178
   (5th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted) (motion to strike); United States v. Holy Land Found. For
   Relief & Dev., 624 F.3d 685, 689 (5th Cir. 2010) (motion to unseal).
           42
              Naranjo v. Thompson, 809 F.3d 793, 799 (5th Cir. 2015) (citing Ulmer v.
   Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982)).

                                                      11
Case: 21-20241         Document: 00516740422                Page: 12      Date Filed: 05/05/2023

                                           No. 21-20241

   circumstances.”43 Thompson is correct that district courts should provide
   “specific findings explaining why counsel was denied.”44 We may find the
   record sufficiently clear, however, to infer the district court’s reasoning. 45
   Here, the district court’s order first concluded that Thompson failed to state
   a claim, and that the claim was frivolous. The district court did not abuse its
   discretion in denying the motion to appoint counsel given the finding that
   Thompson’s claim was not plausible.
          Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) “evinces a bias in favor of
   granting leave to amend.”46 But a “district court properly exercises its
   discretion under Rule 15(a)(2) when it denies leave to amend for a substantial
   reason, such as undue delay, repeated failures to cure deficiencies, undue
   prejudice, or futility.”47 The district court did not abuse its discretion here,
   denying the motion to amend because it dismissed Thompson’s existing
   claims as frivolous, the addition of new claims would cause undue delay and
   prejudice to the existing defendants, and the additional claims arose from
   conditions at a different prison unit.
          Thompson additionally moved to strike the Martinez report as
   misrepresenting his allegations and omitting relevant facts. A “motion to
   strike should be granted only when the pleading to be stricken has no possible

          _____________________
          43
               Id. (quoting Ulmer, 691 F.2d at 212).
          44
               Jackson v. Dallas Police Dep’t, 811 F.2d 260, 262 (5th Cir. 1986).
          45
               Id.
          46
             Mayeaux v. Louisiana Health Serv. & Indem. Co., 376 F.3d 420, 425 (5th Cir.
   2004) (quoting Stripling v. Jordan Prod. Co., LLC, 234 F.3d 863, 872 (5th Cir. 2000)).
          47
               U.S. ex rel. Spicer v. Westbrook, 751 F.3d 354, 367 (5th Cir. 2014) (citation
   omitted).

                                                       12
Case: 21-20241          Document: 00516740422               Page: 13       Date Filed: 05/05/2023

                                            No. 21-20241

   relation to the controversy.”48 This circuit’s precedent authorizing the use
   of Martinez reports supports their relevance to this case. The Martinez report
   also does not displace facts in Thompson’s pleadings, and factual disputes
   are resolved at later litigation stages, rendering the motion to strike
   misplaced. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the
   motion.
           Finally, we evaluate Thompson’s claim that the district court abused
   its discretion in denying his motion to unseal the Martinez report as well as
   the accompanying medical records. In exercising this discretion to seal
   judicial records, “the court must balance the public’s common law right of
   access against the interests favoring nondisclosure.”49 This court has stated
   that “[t]he public’s right to access . . . is relevant regardless of who opposes
   keeping a record under seal.”50 And “[t]he district court’s discretion to seal
   the record of judicial proceedings is to be exercised charily.”51 We have
   previously found abuse of discretion where district courts failed to weigh
   these competing interests when ruling on a motion to seal.52 Here, Texas
   moved to seal Thompson’s confidential medical documents filed alongside
   the Martinez report, and the district court granted the motion. Thompson
   then moved to unseal the documents, waiving his privacy interest “with the
   competent and specific intent that his confidential information be openly
   shared with the public.” The district court did not “articulate any reasons”

           _____________________
           48
             Augustus v. Bd. of Pub. Instruction of Escambia Cnty., Fla., 306 F.2d 862, 868 (5th
   Cir. 1962) (citation omitted).
           49
                S.E.C. v. Van Waeyenberghe, 990 F.2d 845, 848 (5th Cir. 1993) (collecting cases).
           50
                Holy Land Found., 624 F.3d at 690.
           51
                Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Blain, 808 F.2d 395, 399 (5th Cir. 1987).
           52
             See Van Waeyenberghe, 990 F.2d at 848–50; June Med. Servs., L.L.C. v. Phillips,
   22 F.4th 512, 521 (5th Cir. 2022).

                                                       13
Case: 21-20241         Document: 00516740422             Page: 14   Date Filed: 05/05/2023

                                         No. 21-20241

   to continue to seal Thompson’s medical documents after he waived his
   privacy interest.53
                                             ****
          We AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal with a LIMITED
   REMAND instructing the district court to address Thompson’s motion to
   unseal his medical records.

          _____________________
          53
               Van Waeyenberghe, 990 F.2d at 849.

                                                    14