Court Opinion

ID: 9381177
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-22 00:00:30.588776+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:30.492102
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-30374        Document: 00516684406            Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/21/2023

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

                                                                                       FILED
                                                                                 March 21, 2023
                                      No. 22-30374                                   Lyle W. Cayce
                                    Summary Calendar                                      Clerk

   Chad Lightfoot,

                                                                   Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Gary Gilley; Patricia Miller; Chief of Security
   Richland Parish Detention Center; Big Show, Lieutenant;
   Deputy Austin; Deputy Marvel; James M. LeBlanc,
   Secretary, Department of Public Safety and Corrections,

                                                                Defendants—Appellees.

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Louisiana
                              USDC No. 5:22-CV-1080

   Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Chad Lightfoot, Louisiana prisoner #301162, appeals the district
   court’s order striking his complaint from the docket and closing the case. We
   REVERSE and REMAND to the district court for further proceedings.

         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30374      Document: 00516684406          Page: 2   Date Filed: 03/21/2023

                                    No. 22-30374

                                          I
          Lightfoot is a prisoner in the Franklin Parish Detention Center. He
   filed this suit against several prison officials, alleging (among other things)
   that the defendants purposely “lost or misplaced [his] legal materials
   and[/]or personal property,” and had denied him any deprivation
   proceedings.
          The event at issue began on the night of April 16, 2021. Lightfoot
   alleges that, on that night, a prison officer conducted a search and found
   contraband “at bed number #11,” which is not assigned to any prisoner, but
   is directly above Lightfoot’s bed. Because of that incident, Lightfoot was
   disciplined.   He was escorted away from the bed area and placed in
   administrative segregation. Lightfoot alleges that, as he was escorted away
   from the bed area, “his property and belongings [were] scattered all about his
   bed area” due to the search, and they were “unguarded.” He alleges that his
   property included:

      • An MP4 Player
      • $25.00 in cash
      • 250 postal stamps
      • Three pairs of Levi’s 504 relaxed fit jeans
      • New Air Max tennis shoes
      • Two books:
             • Police Misconduct: Law and Litigation
             • 48 Laws of Power
      • A set of personal hair clippers and liners
          Lightfoot alleges that, after about one week in administrative
   segregation, he was transferred directly to a new correctional facility without
   being allowed to take or check on his property before leaving. Prison officials

                                         2
Case: 22-30374      Document: 00516684406          Page: 3    Date Filed: 03/21/2023

                                    No. 22-30374

   subsequently delivered Lightfoot’s property to his new facility, but he alleges
   that “a number of expensive items and legal material[s]” were “missing.”
          Lightfoot alleges that, to recover his missing items, he mailed a
   request for an “Administrative Remedy Procedure” to Defendant Warden
   Miller. However, he alleges that his request was “purposely and knowingly”
   ignored by the prison staff. Consequently, Lightfoot asserts that he was
   denied a deprivation hearing, to which he contends he is entitled “when [his]
   property of any kind [was] seized” by jail or prison officials. Among other
   relief, Lightfoot seeks an injunction to prevent the defendants “from denying
   [him] post deprivation proceedings upon the seizure” of his property.
                                         II
          The merits of Lightfoot’s claims are not at issue here. At issue in this
   appeal is whether the district court erred in striking Lightfoot’s complaint
   from the record based on our holding in Lightfoot v. Corrections Corp. of Am.,
   No. 96-30369, 1996 WL 661267, at *1 (5th Cir. Oct. 23, 1996). In that case, a
   panel of this court held that Lightfoot “is BARRED from filing any pro se, in
   forma pauperis, civil pleading in any court which is subject to this court’s
   jurisdiction, without the advance written permission of a judge of the forum
   court.” Id.
          Relying on that holding, the district court struck Lightfoot’s
   complaint because he failed to seek any prior written permission. The court
   held that, even if Lightfoot was not proceeding in forma pauperis, he
   nonetheless could not file his suit because Lightfoot barred him from filing
   “any pro se action” and “any civil action” without prior written permission
   from a judge. Lightfoot timely appealed.
          On appeal, Lightfoot argues that the district court erred in striking his
   complaint based on the holding in Lightfoot. He argues that Lightfoot barred
   him from proceeding only if he “attempt[s] to proceed as a pauper.” And,

                                          3
Case: 22-30374      Document: 00516684406           Page: 4    Date Filed: 03/21/2023

                                     No. 22-30374

   because he had paid the $402.00 filing fee in the district court (and so was
   not proceeding in forma pauperis), he contends that Lightfoot does not prevent
   him from filing this lawsuit. We agree.
          The district court misconstrued our opinion in concluding that
   Lightfoot was barred from filing “any civil pleadings” and “any pro se
   action.” That conclusion would have been correct if we had held that
   “Lightfoot is barred from filing any pro se, in forma pauperis, or civil
   pleading.” In that instance, Lightfoot would be barred from filing any of the
   following: (1) pro se complaint; (2) complaint made in forma pauperis; and (3)
   civil complaint. But that is not what we held.
          We held that Lightfoot is barred from “filing any pro se, in forma
   pauperis, civil pleading . . . without the advance written permission of a judge
   of the forum court.” Lightfoot, 1996 WL 661267, at *1. The absence of the
   word “or” indicates that the adjectives “pro se,” “in forma pauperis,” and
   “civil” are all coordinate adjectives that modify the same noun, “pleading.”
   See Bryan A. Garner, GARNER’S MODERN AMERICAN USAGE 878 (3d ed.
   2009) (explaining that “coordinate adjective” is “[a]n adjective that appears
   in a sequence with one or more related adjectives to modify the same noun”).
   Coordinate adjectives are often used to convey a precise description of a
   noun. For example, the following passage from the famous tale of Sherlock
   Holmes exemplifies the use of coordinate adjectives: “Our clients were
   punctual to their appointment, for the clock had just struck ten when Dr.
   Mortimer was shown up, followed by the young baronet. The latter was a
   small, alert, dark-eyed man about thirty years of age . . . .” Arthur Conan
   Doyle, THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES 58 (London, George Newnes
   Ltd. 1902) (emphasis added); see also Carlile v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co.,
   988 F.3d 1217, 1227 (10th Cir. 2021) (interpreting a statute that provides
   coverage for an “active, Full-time employee” and holding that, to be eligible
   for coverage, the employee must be both “active” and “Full-time”).

                                          4
Case: 22-30374      Document: 00516684406            Page: 5    Date Filed: 03/21/2023

                                      No. 22-30374

          Accordingly, the bar that we established in Lightfoot only applies to
   pleadings that fulfill all of the following necessary conditions: (1) filed pro se;
   (2) filed in forma pauperis; and (3) civil (as opposed to criminal) in nature.
   1996 WL 661267, at *1. Because Lightfoot’s pleading in this case was not
   filed in forma pauperis, the district court erred in striking his complaint based
   on our holding in Lightfoot. Thus, we REVERSE and REMAND for
   further proceedings.

                                           5