Court Opinion

ID: 9949995
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-13 00:00:43.646898+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:34:48.796009
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-20413            Document: 37-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/12/2024

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit                                          United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                   ____________                                       FILED
                                                                                   March 12, 2024
                                    No. 23-20413
                                  Summary Calendar                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                        Clerk
                                  ____________

Christopher A. Carter,

                                                                  Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                          versus

Bryan Collier, Executive Director, Texas Department of Criminal
Justice; Timothy Fitzpatrick, Director of State Classification
Committee,

                                            Defendants—Appellees.
                   ______________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Southern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 4:22-CV-1912
                   ______________________________

Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
       Christopher A. Carter, Texas prisoner # 1559732, appeals from the
district court’s dismissal with prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as
frivolous and for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. We
review a dismissal as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) de novo.

       _____________________
       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-20413         Document: 37-1        Page: 2     Date Filed: 03/12/2024

                                   No. 23-20413

Carlucci v. Chapa, 884 F.3d 534, 537 (5th Cir. 2018). We review dismissals
under § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim de novo, using the same
standard that applies to dismissals pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). Legate v. Livingston, 822 F.3d 207, 209-10 (5th Cir.
2016). Under that standard, a complaint must contain “sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Id. at 209-10 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We afford pro
se briefs liberal construction. Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir.
1995). “But even for pro se plaintiffs . . . conclusory allegations or legal
conclusions masquerading as factual conclusions will not suffice to state a
claim for relief.” Coleman v. Lincoln Par. Det. Ctr., 858 F.3d 307, 309 (5th
Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
         On appeal, Carter argues that his allegations were sufficient to state a
claim regarding the alleged violation of his rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act (RA), and the Eighth
Amendment. Although Carter claimed that he was deprived of a bed and his
BIPAP respirator on one night during a prison transfer trip, he did not allege
that this deprivation was the result of discrimination based specifically on his
disability, as required for an ADA or RA claim. See Francis v. Our Lady of the
Lake Hosp., Inc., 8 F.4th 370, 378 (5th Cir. 2021) (RA); Hale v. King, 642 F.3d
492, 499 (5th Cir. 2011) (ADA). The district court did not err in determining
that Carter failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted on that
basis.
         Similarly, as to his Eighth Amendment claim, Carter’s allegations fail
to show that the two individual defendants were deliberately indifferent to
his serious medical needs. See Lawson v. Dallas Cnty., 286 F.3d 257, 262 (5th
Cir. 2002). The district court did not err by dismissing this claim as frivolous.
See Carlucci, 884 F.3d at 537.

                                         2
Case: 23-20413       Document: 37-1       Page: 3    Date Filed: 03/12/2024

                                 No. 23-20413

       Carter also contends that the district court should have dismissed his
complaint without prejudice so that he could refile it after correcting any
errors that led to the dismissal. In light of the ample opportunities that the
district court afforded to Carter to perfect his claims, the district court did
not err by dismissing Carter’s complaint with prejudice. See Jones v.
Greninger, 188 F.3d 322, 326-27 (5th Cir. 1999).
       The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                      3