Court Opinion

ID: 9889338
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-09 18:00:23.901711+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:38:46.373494
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-20257         Document: 00516924282             Page: 1      Date Filed: 10/09/2023

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

                                       No. 23-20257
                                                                             FILED
                                                                       October 9, 2023
                                      ____________
                                                                        Lyle W. Cayce
   Lawrence Edward Thompson,                                                 Clerk

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   Doctor Lanette Linthicum,

                                                Defendant—Appellee.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Southern District of Texas
                                USDC No. 4:23-CV-192
                      ______________________________

   Before Haynes, Willett, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Lawrence Edward Thompson, Texas prisoner #408167, seeks leave to
   appeal in forma pauperis (IFP) from (1) the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
   complaint as barred under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and (2) the denials of his
   Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motions challenging that dismissal.
   Thompson does not address, and has therefore abandoned any challenge to,
   the finding that he is barred from proceeding under § 1915(g). See Yohey v.

         _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-20257      Document: 00516924282          Page: 2    Date Filed: 10/09/2023

                                    No. 23-20257

   Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993) (holding that pro se appellant must
   brief arguments to preserve them); Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff
   Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987) (observing that failure to identify any
   error in district court’s analysis is same as if appellant had not appealed).
   Instead, Thompson asserts that he is in imminent danger of serious physical
   injury because he has not received adequate medical treatment for a bacterial
   infection.
          We do not consider Thompson’s contentions, made for the first time
   on appeal, regarding interactions that he allegedly had with medical
   personnel from July to August 2023. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183
   F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir.1999). Thompson’s allegations regarding the bacterial
   infection merely constitute disagreements with his medical treatment and do
   not allege an imminent danger of serious physical injury. See Baños v. O’Guin,
   144 F.3d 883, 885 (5th Cir. 1998).
          Thompson has not shown that he is entitled to proceed IFP on appeal
   or that he raises a nonfrivolous issue regarding the dismissal of his complaint
   pursuant to the three-strikes bar of § 1915(g). See § 1915(g); Baños, 144 F.3d
   at 885. The IFP motion is DENIED, and, because the facts surrounding the
   IFP decision are inextricably intertwined with the merits of the appeal, the
   appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202
   & n.24 (5th Cir. 1997); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
          We previously warned Thompson about the three-strikes bar of
   § 1915(g) and cautioned him that he could be subject to additional sanctions
   if he filed future frivolous or repetitive filings. See Thompson v. Allred Unit,
   No. 23-10041, 2023 WL 3617847, 1 (5th Cir. May 24, 2023); Thompson v.
   Allred Unit, No. 22-10641, 2022 WL 14461808, 1 (5th Cir. Oct. 25, 2022),
   cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 2646 (2023). Because Thompson has not heeded those
   warnings, he is ORDERED to pay a sanction of $100 to the clerk of court,

                                          2
Case: 23-20257      Document: 00516924282          Page: 3   Date Filed: 10/09/2023

                                    No. 23-20257

   and he is barred from filing any pleading in this court or any court subject to
   this court’s jurisdiction until the sanction is paid in full, unless he obtains
   leave of the court in which he seeks to file such pleading. He is again
   reminded that, because he has three strikes, he is barred from proceeding IFP
   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). Thompson is also again WARNED that the filing of repetitive or
   frivolous pleadings in this court or any court subject to this court’s
   jurisdiction could result in additional sanctions. He is directed to review all
   pending matters and move to dismiss any that are frivolous, repetitive, or
   otherwise abusive.

                                          3