Court Opinion

ID: 9388591
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-21 00:00:32.514276+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:21.174184
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60161        Document: 00516719456             Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/20/2023

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

                                     ____________                             FILED
                                                                          April 20, 2023
                                      No. 22-60161                       Lyle W. Cayce
                                    Summary Calendar                          Clerk
                                    ____________

   Chaz D. Pinkston,

                                                                   Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Management & Training Corporation; Jody Bradley;
   Gabriel Walker; Bessie McKnight; Tonya Toomey;
   Terry Daniels; Justin Green; Delando Miles; Karen
   Brown; Trinity, Food Service Contractor for W.C.C.F; Robyn
   Williams; Delvittia Davis, Nutritional Supervisor,

                                              Defendants—Appellees.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Southern District of Mississippi
                               USDC No. 5:18-CV-103
                     ______________________________

   Before Jones, Stewart, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Chaz D. Pinkston, Mississippi prisoner # 148934, filed and was given
   leave to amend a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against dozens of

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60161      Document: 00516719456          Page: 2   Date Filed: 04/20/2023

                                    No. 22-60161

   defendants concerning his treatment as a prisoner in the Wilkinson County
   Correctional Facility (WCCF).        The parties consented to proceed to
   judgment before a Magistrate Judge (MJ). Over the more than three years in
   which this matter was litigated, the MJ issued several orders addressing the
   individual claims. Some of the claims were dismissed either as frivolous or
   for failing to state a claim on which relief could be granted. Pinkston has not
   challenged these dismissals.     The remaining claims were all dismissed
   pursuant to motions for summary judgment filed by the defendants. It is
   these dismissals that Pinkston appeals. We review the grant of summary
   judgment de novo and apply the same standard as the district court. Nickell
   v. Beau View of Biloxi, L.L.C., 636 F.3d 752, 754 (5th Cir. 2011). We note that
   Pinkston has not briefed and consequently abandoned all issues not expressly
   discussed below. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993).
          The MJ granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on
   Pinkston’s claims of conditions of confinement, including being given
   inadequate food and being housed in a cell that was not clean, because he
   failed to exhaust his administrative remedies for these claims. See Johnson v.
   Johnson, 385 F.3d 503, 515 (5th Cir. 2004). Exhaustion is an affirmative
   defense, and defendants must establish “beyond peradventure all of the
   essential elements of the defense of exhaustion to warrant summary
   judgment in their favor.” Dillon v. Rogers, 596 F.3d 260, 266 (5th Cir. 2010).
   The exhaustion requirement is not excused if the prisoner’s grievances are
   rejected for noncompliance with procedural rules; if an inmate disregards the
   rules, he does not properly exhaust his claims. See Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S.
   199, 218 (2007).    On appeal, Pinkston has not shown that his claims
   concerning the conditions of his confinement were exhausted or that the
   district court erred by dismissing them without prejudice. See Dillon, 596
   F.3d at 266; Johnson, 385 F.3d at 522.

                                          2
Case: 22-60161      Document: 00516719456           Page: 3    Date Filed: 04/20/2023

                                     No. 22-60161

          Pinkston also challenges the dismissal with prejudice on summary
   judgment of his claims of the excessive use of force, the denial of visitation
   rights, and the denial of his First Amendment right to practice his religion.
   The standard of review is the same as discussed above. See Nickell, 636 F.3d
   at 754. To support summary judgment, the moving party must demonstrate
   the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Duffie v. United States, 600
   F.3d 362, 371 (5th Cir. 2010). All facts and reasonable inferences must be
   construed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, and the court must
   not weigh evidence or make credibility calls. Deville v. Marcantel, 567 F.3d
   156, 163-64 (5th Cir. 2009).
          In the context of claims of excessive force, the Supreme Court has
   held that the “core judicial inquiry” is “whether force was applied in a good-
   faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to
   cause harm.” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 7 (1992). For visitation
   rights, the court has held that “prisoners have no absolute constitutional
   right to visitation,” but “[e]ven so, limitations of visitation may be imposed
   only if they are necessary to meet legitimate penological objectives.” Lynott
   v. Henderson, 610 F.2d 340, 342-43 (5th Cir. 1980). As to Pinkston’s religious
   practice claim, “inmates retain their First Amendment right to exercise
   religion; however, this right is subject to reasonable restrictions and
   limitations necessitated by penological goals.” Hicks v. Garner, 69 F.3d 22,
   25 (5th Cir. 1995) (footnotes omitted). A restriction “is valid if it is
   reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.” Turner v. Safley, 482
   U.S. 78, 89 (1987). To challenge the MJ’s grant of summary judgment on
   these claims, Pinkston has produced nothing but conclusory allegations and
   unsubstantiated assertions. This is not sufficient to show that the MJ erred
   in granting summary judgment. See Duffie, 600 F.3d at 371.
          Pinkston argues that the MJ erred in denying his requests for
   appointment of counsel.        We will not overturn a decision regarding

                                           3
Case: 22-60161     Document: 00516719456          Page: 4   Date Filed: 04/20/2023

                                   No. 22-60161

   appointment of counsel unless the appellant shows a “clear abuse of
   discretion.” Cupit v. Jones, 835 F.2d 82, 86 (5th Cir. 1987). As is apparent
   from the extensive pleadings in this case, Pinkston was more than able to
   conduct this litigation, and his case did not present extraordinary
   circumstances warranting appointed counsel. See Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691
   F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982). Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
         In his brief on appeal, Pinkston seeks default judgments against several
   defendants for failing to enter appearances in this proceeding. He has also
   filed 14 motions for default judgment for the same reason. Default judgments
   are not appropriate or authorized in appellate practice. Accordingly, the
   motions are DENIED.

                                        4