Court Opinion

ID: 9894554
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-02 00:00:37.768473+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:49.690510
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-40254        Document: 00516952746             Page: 1      Date Filed: 11/01/2023

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

                                     ____________                                     FILED
                                                                               November 1, 2023
                                      No. 23-40254                               Lyle W. Cayce
                                    Summary Calendar                                  Clerk
                                    ____________

   Daniel Neal Martin,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Live Oak County Jail; Live Oak County Sheriffs
   Department; Cara Kay Joiner Barton; Maurice
   Chambers; Daniel Coban Barton, also known as Daniel
   Forrest Coban Joiner Bart; Sheriff Larry Busby; Chief
   Deputy Charlie Stroleny; Captain Misty Gonzalez;
   Corporal Vasquez; Jailer Perry, also known as Corporal
   Perry,

                                              Defendants—Appellees.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Southern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 2:22-CV-156
                     ______________________________

   Before Jolly, Engelhardt, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-40254       Document: 00516952746            Page: 2      Date Filed: 11/01/2023

                                       No. 23-40254

          Daniel Neal Martin, Live Oak County Jail prisoner # 26884, appeals
   the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit as either frivolous or for failure to
   state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or both, under 28 U.S.C.
   §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A. He also moves for appointment of counsel.
          We review de novo a dismissal by a district court as either frivolous or
   for failure to state a claim, or both, under §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1).
   See Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373 (5th Cir. 2005). To determine whether
   an action states a claim on which relief may be granted, a court must deter-
   mine whether the complaint “contain[s] sufficient factual matter, accepted
   as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
   556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “A
   complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact.” Berry v.
   Brady, 192 F.3d 504, 507 (5th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks and cita-
   tion omitted).
          Martin first claims the district court erred in dismissing his First
   Amendment claim as either frivolous or for failure to state a claim, or both.
   However, Martin has not alleged, either here or in the district court, that he
   expressed himself toward Corporal Vasquez in a manner that was consistent
   with his status as a prisoner. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 523 (1984);
   Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 545 (1979). Thus, the district court did not err
   in dismissing this claim. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Berry, 192 F.3d at 507.
          Next, Martin claims the district court erred in dismissing his excessive
   force claim against the defendants. At most, he suggests that Corporal
   Vasquez’s use of pepper spray posed an even greater risk of bodily injury
   because Martin had COVID-19 at the time of the incident. Because he offers
   only a conclusional assertion in this regard and does not challenge
   meaningfully the district court’s reasons for dismissal, Martin has not
   demonstrated that the district court erred in dismissing the excessive force

                                             2
Case: 23-40254      Document: 00516952746            Page: 3    Date Filed: 11/01/2023

                                      No. 23-40254

   claim as either frivolous or for failure to state a claim, or both. See Kingsley v.
   Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389, 396-97 (2015); Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Mowbray v.
   Cameron Cnty., 274 F.3d 269, 278 (5th Cir. 2001); Berry, 192 F.3d at 507.
          Martin also argues the district court erred in dismissing his
   conditions-of-confinement claims, including denial of recreation privileges
   and denial of medical treatment. However, he has waived these arguments
   by providing no meaningful argument or challenge to the district court’s
   reasons for dismissing these claims. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-
   25 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d
   744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Similarly, by failing to challenge the district court’s
   dismissal of his supervisory liability claims and those claims against the
   defendants in their official capacities, he has abandoned them.                See
   Brinkmann, 813 F.2d at 748. And while Martin purports to raise a claim of
   discrimination, we will not consider it because Martin did not raise this claim
   in the suit forming the basis of this appeal. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder
   Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999); Yohey, 985 F.2d at 224-25; see also
   Theriot v. Parish of Jefferson, 185 F.3d 477, 491 n.26 (5th Cir. 1999).
          As to Martin’s argument that he has been denied bond hearings in
   violation of his civil rights, given that any issue related to his bond would
   implicate his state criminal case, rather than the instant civil matter, the
   district court did not err in declining to review the issue. See 28 U.S.C.
   §§ 2241, 2254; Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 17, et seq. Nor did the
   district court err in denying Martin’s request for injunctive relief in the form
   of a policy prohibiting the use of “respiratory irritants” on COVID-positive
   prisoners, as he failed to make the requisite showing for such relief. Byrum v.
   Landreth, 566 F.3d 442, 445 (5th Cir. 2009).
          The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED, and Martin’s
   motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. See Cooper v. Sheriff,

                                           3
Case: 23-40254      Document: 00516952746           Page: 4    Date Filed: 11/01/2023

                                     No. 23-40254

   Lubbock Cnty., 929 F.2d 1078, 1084 (5th Cir. 1991). The district court’s
   dismissal of Martin’s complaint under § 1915(e)(2)(B) as either frivolous or
   for failure to state a claim, or both, counts as a single strike under § 1915(g).
   See § 1915(g); Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996),
   abrogated in part on other grounds by Coleman v. Tollefson, 575 U.S. 532, 534-41
   (2015). Martin previously accumulated one strike for the dismissal of a prior
   suit as frivolous or for failure to state a claim, or both. See Martin v. Busby,
   No. 22-40725, 2023 WL 4983234, 1 (5th Cir. Aug. 3, 2023) (unpublished).
   Accordingly, Martin is WARNED that if he accumulates three strikes, he
   may not proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he
   is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger
   of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).

                                          4