Court Opinion

ID: 9366245
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-26 15:04:10.089779+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:50.850207
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-40428      Document: 00516429381         Page: 1     Date Filed: 08/11/2022

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

                                                                                FILED
                                  No. 21-40428                            August 11, 2022
                                Summary Calendar                           Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk

   Rell Angton, Jr.,

                                                             Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                       versus

   Bryan Collier, Executive Director, Texas Department of Criminal
   Justice; Texas Department of Criminal Justice,

                                                          Defendants—Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Eastern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 1:20-CV-182

   Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Rell Angton, Jr., former Texas prisoner # 799563, appeals the
   dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit based upon immunity under 28 U.S.C.
   § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) and for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be

          *
            Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
   circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-40428      Document: 00516429381           Page: 2     Date Filed: 08/11/2022

                                    No. 21-40428

   granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). In that suit, he
   alleged that the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) and Brian
   Collier, the TDCJ Executive Director, exposed Angton to excessive heat in
   violation of the terms of a settlement agreement from a separate class action.
   The settlement agreement provided that all class members, including
   Angton, be housed in air-conditioned facilities for the remainder of their
   incarceration.
          We review a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim de
   novo. See Morris v. Livingston, 739 F.3d 740, 745 (5th Cir. 2014). Angton
   does not challenge the district court’s reasoning that the TDCJ was entitled
   to Eleventh Amendment immunity against Angton’s suit for money
   damages. Because Angton fails to contest or address the district court’s
   reasons   for    dismissing   his    claims     against    the   TDCJ    under
   § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii), he has abandoned any argument in that regard on appeal.
   See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224–25 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v. Dall.
   Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
          Additionally, Angton has not stated a plausible claim for relief against
   Collier under § 1983. Angton did not allege any personal involvement by
   Collier in an act or omission that resulted in Angton’s alleged exposure to
   extreme heat. See Thompkins v. Belt, 828 F.2d 298, 303 (5th Cir. 1987). Nor
   did Angton allege any policy implemented by Collier that was “the moving
   force” behind such exposure. See id. (quoting Grandstaff v. City of Borger,
   Tex., 767 F.2d 161, 169 (5th Cir. 1985)). Moreover, Angton does not state a
   facially plausible claim that Collier is liable for violating the terms of the
   settlement agreement because “a remedial court order, standing alone, does
   not serve as a basis for section 1983 liability.” Woods v. Edwards, 51 F.3d 577,
   582 (5th Cir. 1995).

                                          2
Case: 21-40428      Document: 00516429381           Page: 3    Date Filed: 08/11/2022

                                     No. 21-40428

          Finally, Angton attempts to raise claims of money damages against the
   State of Texas and civil rights violations against various prison employees.
   Because he did not raise those claims in the district court, we will not
   consider them in the first instance on appeal. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder
   Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999).
          Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
   Angton’s motions for appointment of counsel are DENIED.

                                          3