Court Opinion

ID: 9406835
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-04 00:00:40.069018+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:33.561725
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-40477        Document: 00516807795             Page: 1      Date Filed: 07/03/2023

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

                                                                                      FILED
                                      No. 22-40477                                   July 3, 2023
                                    Summary Calendar
                                    ____________                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                      Clerk
   Eric Watkins,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Timothy Carter, also known as UP Carter; Dony Cartrette,
   also known as UP Coltran; Jody Upton, Individually and in His
   Official Capacity as Warden; Paul Hayes,

                                              Defendants—Appellees.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Eastern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 1:11-CV-505
                     ______________________________

   Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*

         Eric Watkins, former federal prisoner # 55630-004, sued various
   federal prison officials pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of
   Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), raising claims of excessive
   force and retaliation. Watkins appeals the dismissal of that suit under 28
         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40477      Document: 00516807795           Page: 2     Date Filed: 07/03/2023

                                     No. 22-40477

   U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may
   be granted. He argues that the district court incorrectly declined to extend
   the Bivens remedy to his claims of excessive force and retaliation.
          We review de novo dismissals of a claim pursuant to
   § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), using the same standard applied to dismissals pursuant
   to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Black v. Warren, 134 F.3d 732,
   733-34 (5th Cir. 1998). A suit “will survive dismissal for failure to state a
   claim if it contains sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim
   to relief that is plausible on its face.” Legate v. Livingston, 822 F.3d 207, 210
   (5th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
          Watkins has not stated a plausible claim that Bivens should be
   extended to the new contexts of excessive force and retaliation. See Egbert v.
   Boule, 142 S. Ct. 1793, 1807-08 (2022); Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120, 130-31,
   135 (2017); Butler v. Porter, 999 F.3d 287, 293 (5th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142
   S. Ct. 766 (2022). Therefore, the district court did not err in dismissing his
   suit for failure to state a claim. See Legate, 822 F.3d at 210; Black, 134 F.3d at
   733-34.
          AFFIRMED.

                                               2