Court Opinion

ID: 9377051
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-06 19:00:40.885879+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:11.634993
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-40362         Document: 00516666520             Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/06/2023

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

                                      ____________                                      FILED
                                                                                      March 6, 2023
                                       No. 22-40362                                   Lyle W. Cayce
                                     Summary Calendar                                      Clerk
                                     ____________

   Mark Douglas Adams,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
   Correctional Institutions Division,

                                                Defendant—Appellee.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Eastern District of Texas
                                USDC No. 6:21-CV-195
                      ______________________________

   Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Mark Douglas Adams, Texas prisoner # 1509320, appeals the district
   court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to state a claim
   upon which relief may be granted and the magistrate judge’s denial of several
   postjudgment motions. Additionally, Adams has filed motions asking this
   court to admit all motions, exhibits, amended complaints, and briefs; for the
          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40362          Document: 00516666520       Page: 2     Date Filed: 03/06/2023

                                     No. 22-40362

   appointment of counsel; for a preliminary injunction and a temporary
   restraining order; and for leave to file documents supporting the motion for
   injunctive relief.
          As a threshold matter, we lack jurisdiction to consider any appeal from
   the magistrate judge’s denial of Adams’s postjudgment motions.                See
   Donaldson v. Ducote, 373 F.3d 622, 624 (5th Cir. 2004). Concerning the
   dismissal of his § 1983 action, Adams discusses only his claims alleging failure
   to protect, deliberate indifference to his medical needs, and excessive use of
   force. By his failure to brief, he has abandoned any challenge to the dismissal
   of his other claims. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).
          Following de novo review, we AFFIRM. See Geiger v. Jowers, 404
   F.3d 371, 373 (5th Cir. 2005). “To establish a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff
   must (1) allege a violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the
   United States and (2) demonstrate that the alleged deprivation was
   committed by a person acting under color of state law.” Pratt v. Harris Cnty.,
   822 F.3d 174, 180 (5th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citation
   omitted). We discern no error in the dismissal of Adams’s claims alleging
   failure to protect, see Rogers v. Boatright, 709 F.3d 403, 407-08 (5th Cir. 2013);
   deliberate indifference to Adams’s medical needs, see Farmer v. Brennan, 511
   U.S. 825, 837 (1994); and excessive use of force, see Williams v. Banks, 956
   F.3d 808, 812 & n.11 (5th Cir. 2020); Woods v. Edwards, 51 F.3d 577, 583 (5th
   Cir. 1995).
          As for Adams’s four appellate motions, he has not shown that
   exceptional circumstances exist warranting the appointment of counsel on
   appeal, see Cooper v. Sheriff, Lubbock Cnty., 929 F.2d 1078, 1084 (5th Cir.
   1991), or that he is entitled to injunctive relief, see Byrum v. Landreth, 566
   F.3d 442, 445 (5th Cir. 2009); Greene v. Fair, 314 F.2d 200, 202 (5th Cir.
   1963). Accordingly, we DENY his motions for the appointment of counsel

                                           2
Case: 22-40362      Document: 00516666520          Page: 3   Date Filed: 03/06/2023

                                    No. 22-40362

   and for a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order. Adams’s
   motion to admit all motions, exhibits, amended complaints, and briefs is
   DENIED as unnecessary.           His motion for leave to file documents
   supporting the motion for injunctive relief is GRANTED. The referenced
   documents were considered in addressing Adams’s motion for injunctive
   relief. No further filings from Adams are permitted by this ruling. Finally,
   Adams is reminded that he is BARRED from proceeding 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 28
   U.S.C. § 1915(g); Coleman v. Tollefson, 575 U.S. 532, 534 (2015).

                                         3