Court Opinion

ID: 9930812
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-07 19:01:28.185268+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:41:00.397072
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10950       Document: 00517058559             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/07/2024

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                    ____________
                                                                             United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                      Fifth Circuit
                                     No. 23-10950
                                   Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                   ____________                               February 7, 2024
                                                                               Lyle W. Cayce
   William Andrews,                                                                 Clerk

                                                                   Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                           versus

   Robert Johnson; Daniel McAninch; Jacob Palos,

                                             Defendants—Appellees.
                    ______________________________

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Northern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 3:23-CV-871
                    ______________________________

   Before Jones, Higginson, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          William Andrews, Texas prisoner # 02402581, seeks leave to proceed
   in forma pauperis (IFP) to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his
   42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, in which he alleged that three police officers
   used excessive force against him during their pursuit and arrest of him. The

          _____________________
          *
              Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion
   should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set
   forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 23-10950      Document: 00517058559          Page: 2     Date Filed: 02/07/2024

                                    No. 23-10950

   district court dismissed Andrews’s complaint, finding that it was barred by
   Texas’s two-year statute of limitations governing personal-injury actions. By
   moving in this court to proceed IFP, Andrews is challenging the district
   court’s certification that any appeal would not be taken in good faith because
   he had not shown that he will present a nonfrivolous appellate issue. See
   Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).
          Before this court, Andrews argues that he is entitled to tolling of the
   limitations period under Texas’s fraudulent concealment doctrine because
   he was unconscious during the subject incident and did not learn of the
   officers’ alleged use of excess force until long after it occurred. However,
   Andrews claimed that the alleged assault resulted in severe injuries, and a
   reasonably prudent person who suffered similar injuries would have
   investigated the cause of such injuries at the time or shortly after regaining
   consciousness. See King-White v. Humble Indep. Sch. Dist., 803 F.3d 754, 764
   (5th Cir. 2015). Though he alleged that he could not have discovered the
   cause of his injuries due to the existence of a “possible choreographed
   attempt to cover-up the misconduct of” the officers, his allegation is largely
   speculative and insufficiently specific under applicable pleading standards.
   See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
          Andrews additionally contends that he is entitled to operation of the
   federal “discovery rule” insofar as his cause of action did not accrue until he
   was provided with copies of various police reports two days after the
   limitations period lapsed. However, Andrews has not shown entitlement to
   the “discovery rule” because he fails to detail any meaningful or reasonably
   diligent steps that he took to investigate or discover the cause of his injuries
   prior to his alleged receipt of the reports.          See In re FEMA Trailer
   Formaldehyde Prods. Liab. Litig., 646 F.3d 185, 190 (5th Cir. 2011), abrogated
   in part on other grounds by United States v. Kwai Fun Wong, 575 U.S. 402, 407
   (2015).

                                          2
Case: 23-10950       Document: 00517058559          Page: 3    Date Filed: 02/07/2024

                                     No. 23-10950

            Finally, Andrews fails to reprise his claim that he is entitled to
   application of Texas’s equitable tolling doctrine.         Any such claim is
   abandoned. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); see also
   Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.
   1987).
            Andrews has failed to raise a nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Thus, the
   appeal lacks arguable merit and is frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d
   215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, the motion for leave to proceed IFP
   and the motion for the appointment of counsel are DENIED, and the appeal
   is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5th Cir.
   R. 42.2.
            The district court’s dismissal of Andrews’s complaint for failure to
   state a claim and the dismissal of this appeal as frivolous each count as strikes
   under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th
   Cir. 1996), abrogated in part on other grounds by Coleman v. Tollefson, 575 U.S.
   532, 537 (2015). Andrews is WARNED that if he accumulates three strikes,
   he will not be permitted to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while
   incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of
   serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).

                                           3