Court Opinion

ID: 9838609
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-07 00:00:34.153628+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:00.123552
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10330        Document: 00516885832             Page: 1      Date Filed: 09/06/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 23-10330
                                    Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                    ____________                              September 6, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   Jacob James Kelly,                                                                 Clerk

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Olivia Caudillo; David Dyer; Cody Parker; Charles
   Miller, III; FNU LNU, One Unknown OIG Investigator; FNU
   Vasquez, Captain; FNU Garces; Eight Unknown TDCJ-CID
   Officers,

                                              Defendants—Appellees.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 5:21-CV-175
                     ______________________________

   Before Jones, Southwick, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Jacob James Kelly, Texas prisoner # 118728, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983
   suit naming fifteen defendants, all employees of the Texas Department of
   Criminal Justice (TDCJ) Preston E. Smith Unit. These defendants included

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10330      Document: 00516885832            Page: 2    Date Filed: 09/06/2023

                                      No. 23-10330

   (1) Lieutenant Olivia Caudillo; (2) Major David Dyer; (3) Assistant Warden
   Cody Parker; (4) Lieutenant Charles Miller; (5) Unknown Office of the
   Inspector General (OIG) Investigator; (6) Captain FNU Vasquez;
   (7) Property Officer FNU Garces; and (8) Eight Unknown Correctional
   Officers. Kelly seeks monetary damages as well as injunctive relief. The
   district court dismissed most of Kelly’s claims under 28 U.S.C.
   § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), issuing a final judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the
   Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court did, however, stay his claim
   against Miller and ordered that his claim against Vazquez proceed. Kelly
   filed a timely notice of appeal. He also moves this court for the appointment
   of counsel on appeal.
          Because the district court dismissed some of Kelly’s § 1983 claims for
   failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), we review that ruling under
   the same de novo standard that applies to a dismissal under Federal Rule of
   Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Black v. Warren, 134 F.3d 732, 733–34 (5th Cir.
   1998). “We accept all well-pleaded facts as true and view those facts in the
   light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Whitley v. Hanna, 726 F.3d 631, 637
   (5th Cir. 2013).     Nonetheless, a complaint will not proceed unless it
   “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).
          Many of Kelly’s claims center around the argument that prison
   officials failed to protect him. To state a viable constitutional claim for failure
   to protect, a plaintiff must show: (1) he was subjected to conditions posing a
   substantial risk of serious harm; and (2) prison officials were deliberately
   indifferent to his need for protection. Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 533 (5th
   Cir. 1995).

                                           2
Case: 23-10330      Document: 00516885832           Page: 3    Date Filed: 09/06/2023

                                     No. 23-10330

          Kelly first argues that three unknown prison guards failed to protect
   him from his cellmate. However, Kelly did not allege facts supporting his
   claim that the guards acted with deliberate indifference to a known
   substantial risk of harm. See Neals, 59 F.3d at 533. His claim that the guards
   discriminated against him when one guard told him to “man up” is
   unpersuasive because he offers only conclusory beliefs in support of his
   claim. See Priester v. Lowndes Cnty., 354 F.3d 414, 420, 423 (5th Cir. 2004).
   Regarding his failure to protect claim against Caudillo, Kelly does not allege
   any physical injury as a result of her order that he be housed with his alleged
   extorter. Accordingly, this claim is unavailing. See Jones v. Greninger, 188
   F.3d 322, 326 (5th Cir. 1999). He likewise fails to state a claim that Caudillo
   is liable for Miller’s alleged excessive force under a supervisory liability
   theory. See Goodman v. Harris Cnty., 571 F.3d 388, 395 (5th Cir. 2009);
   Thompkins v. Belt, 828 F.2d 298, 304 (5th Cir. 1987).
          The district court did not err when it stayed Kelly’s excessive force
   claim against Miller. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486–87 (1994).
   Moreover, Kelly’s claim that Assistant Warden Parker, Major Dyer, and the
   unknown OIG investigator failed to investigate his claims adequately fails
   because a prisoner “does not have a federally protected liberty interest in
   having . . . grievances resolved to his satisfaction.” Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d
   371, 374 (5th Cir. 2005). Concerning his claim against Garces and five
   unknown officers, he has waived it because he has failed to substantively brief
   his argument. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224–25 (5th Cir. 1993). Finally,
   the appointment of counsel on appeal is not warranted. See Ulmer v.
   Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212, 213 (5th Cir. 1982).
          Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
   Kelly’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED.

                                          3