Court Opinion

ID: 9397851
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-26 18:00:32.915139+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:28.193044
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10098         Document: 00516765294             Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/26/2023

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

                                       No. 23-10098
                                                                                         FILED
                                                                                      May 26, 2023
                                      ____________
                                                                                      Lyle W. Cayce
   Shedrick Thornton,                                                                      Clerk

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   Dr. Michael Pittman; FNU Doyle, Court Coordinator; FNU
   Brown, Sheriff; Dallas County Governmental Agency,
   Commissioners Court; Tina Y. Clinton, Judge; Calvin Johnson;
   Robert Burns; Jessie Allen,

                                               Defendants—Appellees.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                                USDC No. 3:22-CV-605
                      ______________________________

   Before King, Jones, and Smith, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Shedrick Thornton, Texas prisoner # 22003389, moves to proceed in
   forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal following the district court’s dismissal of his
   42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims as frivolous and because he sought monetary relief
   against immune defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10098      Document: 00516765294           Page: 2   Date Filed: 05/26/2023

                                    No. 23-10098

   1915(e)(2)(B); the district court severed Thornton’s habeas claims into a
   separate action. In the district court, Thornton dismissed his claims against
   all defendants except for Dr. Michael Pittman, Judges Tina Y. Clinton and
   Robert Burns, and Assistant District Attorney (ADA) Jesse Allen.
          Thornton’s IFP motion challenges the district court’s determination
   that the appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197,
   202 (5th Cir. 1997). Our inquiry into whether the appeal is taken in good faith
   “is limited to whether the appeal involves ‘legal points arguable on their
   merits (and therefore not frivolous).’” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220
   (5th Cir. 1983) (citation omitted). Thornton does not address either the
   dismissal of his claims against Judge Burns or the district court’s finding that
   ADA Allen is entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity from suit; he has,
   therefore, abandoned any challenge to the dismissal of his claims against
   these defendants. See Yohey v. 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).
          We do not address Thornton’s claim, raised for the first time on
   appeal, that Dr. Pittman violated his due process and Eighth Amendment
   rights by declaring him incompetent based upon the wrong legal standard.
   See Hannah v. United States, 523 F.3d 597, 600 n.1 (5th Cir. 2008). Although
   he contends that the district court erred by dismissing his equal protection
   claim against Dr. Pittman, Thornton does not cite any factual allegations that
   he made in the district court showing that Dr. Pittman treated him differently
   from any similarly situated individuals on account of his race. See Hines v.
   Quillivan, 982 F.3d 266, 272 (5th Cir. 2020) (“To state a claim for equal
   protection, the plaintiff must prove that similarly situated individuals were
   treated differently.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

                                                2
Case: 23-10098      Document: 00516765294          Page: 3    Date Filed: 05/26/2023

                                    No. 23-10098

   Thornton does not address, and has therefore abandoned any challenge to,
   the dismissal of any of his other claims against Dr. Pittman. See Yohey, 985
   F.2d at 225; Brinkmann, 813 F.2d at 748.
           Generally, judges are absolutely immune from suits for damages; the
   only two exceptions are for nonjudicial actions and actions taken without
   jurisdiction. Davis v. Tarrant Cnty., 565 F.3d 214, 221 (5th Cir. 2009). In
   challenging the district court’s holding that Judge Clinton is entitled to
   absolute judicial immunity from his claims, Thornton fails to raise a
   nonfrivolous argument that either of these exceptions apply. See id. at 221-
   22. As he has not shown that his appeal involves a nonfrivolous issue,
   Thornton’s motion to proceed IFP is DENIED, and his 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 the suit under §§ 1915A and
   1915(e)(2)(B) and our dismissal of this appeal as frivolous each count as
   strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Brown v. Megg, 857 F.3d 287, 291 (5th
   Cir. 2017); 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); Boyd
   v. Biggers, 31 F.3d 279, 281, 284-85 (5th Cir. 1994). Thornton is WARNED
   that if he accumulates three strikes, he will not be permitted to proceed 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).

                                              3