Court Opinion

ID: 9917341
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-12 01:01:04.502774+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:02:24.481085
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-40252         Document: 00517030928             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/11/2024

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

                                                                                          FILED
                                       No. 23-40252                                   January 11, 2024
                                     Summary Calendar                                  Lyle W. Cayce
                                     ____________                                           Clerk

   Patrick Dennis Hostetter,

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   Aransas County; Armando Chapa; Jason Andrade;
   Joshua Doane; Manuel Solis,

                                               Defendants—Appellees.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Southern District of Texas
                                USDC No. 2:22-CV-182
                      ______________________________

   Before King, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Patrick Dennis Hostetter, Texas prisoner # 2411349, who was a
   pretrial detainee at the Aransas County Detention Center (ACDC) at the
   time he filed his complaint, appeals from the dismissal of his pro se 42 U.S.C.
   § 1983 suit as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C.
   §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(b)(1). Hostetter’s claims arose from allegations
          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-40252       Document: 00517030928           Page: 2      Date Filed: 01/11/2024

                                      No. 23-40252

   that he was involved in a van accident while being transported from the
   ACDC to the county courthouse. Prior to the dismissal, the magistrate judge
   held a Spears hearing to allow Hostetter to clarify his claims. See Spears v.
   McCotter, 766 F.2d 179, 181-82 (5th Cir. 1985), abrogated on other grounds
   by Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989). On appeal, Hostetter argues that
   the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs,
   failed to report the accident, and conspired to cover up the accident and
   retaliate against him.
          This    court     reviews    dismissals    under     § 1915(e)(2)(B)     and
   § 1915A(b)(1) de novo, applying the same standard as when reviewing the
   grant of a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
   DeMoss v. Crain, 636 F.3d 145, 152 (5th Cir. 2011). Dismissal is appropriate
   where a complaint does not “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
   true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
   556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
   570 (2007)). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief
   above the speculative level on the assumption that all the allegations in the
   complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555
   (internal citations and footnote omitted).                “[E]ven for pro se
   plaintiffs . . . conclusory allegations or legal conclusions masquerading as
   factual conclusions will not suffice to state a claim for relief.” Coleman v.
   Lincoln Par. Det. Ctr., 858 F.3d 307, 309 (5th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation
   marks and citation omitted).
          Initially, Hostetter failed to allege the existence of an official policy, or
   that Aransas County was aware of a widespread or common custom, that
   caused his injury. Hicks-Fields v. Harris Cnty., 860 F.3d 803, 808 (5th Cir.
   2017). Thus, he shows no error in the district court’s dismissal of his
   municipal liability claims.

                                            2
Case: 23-40252      Document: 00517030928           Page: 3    Date Filed: 01/11/2024

                                     No. 23-40252

          Hostetter also failed state a claim that Officers Joshua Doane and
   Manuel Solis were deliberately indifferent to his safety by placing him in
   restraints and failing to secure him with a seatbelt on the morning of the
   accident. To this end, in the district court, Hostetter did not allege facts
   showing that the officers drove recklessly or that they otherwise had
   knowledge of a substantial risk of harm. See Baughman v. Hickman, 935 F.3d
   302, 307-09 (5th Cir. 2019); Rogers v. Boatright, 709 F.3d 403, 408-09 (5th
   Cir. 2013). As for Hostetter’s allegations that Officers Doane and Solis failed
   to provide emergency medical treatment after the accident, he failed to
   sufficiently allege facts demonstrating that the officers were aware of and
   consciously disregarded the need for such treatment. See Lawson v. Dallas
   Cnty., 286 F.3d 257, 262 (5th Cir. 2002). In this regard, his description of
   the accident did not indicate that it was serious, and he did not contend that
   he manifested any physical symptoms demonstrating a need for emergency
   medical treatment.
          Further, Hostetter’s claim that Captain Jason Andrade verbally
   harassed him, standing alone, did not support a viable constitutional claim.
   See Calhoun v. Hargrove, 312 F.3d 730, 734 (5th Cir. 2002). And Hostetter
   did not allege facts showing Captain Andrade interfered with his medical
   treatment or intended to retaliate against him for exercising a specific
   constitutional right. See DeMarco v. Davis, 914 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 2019).
          To the extent Hostetter complained that Deputy Chief Armando
   Chapa improperly resolved his grievances, a prisoner has no federally
   protected liberty interest in having grievances resolved to his satisfaction. See
   Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 374 (5th Cir. 2005). Moreover, Hostetter
   failed to state a claim of deliberate indifference related to Deputy Chapa’s
   denial of his requests for a clinical evaluation and further testing. The records
   provided by Hostetter demonstrate that Deputy Chapa relied on Hostetter’s
   x-ray results, which revealed no abnormalities, and the fact that he had been

                                          3
Case: 23-40252        Document: 00517030928         Page: 4    Date Filed: 01/11/2024

                                     No. 23-40252

   seen by a nurse, who gave him over-the-counter medication. Further, based
   on the facts as alleged in the district court, Hostetter failed to state a claim
   that Deputy Chapa disregarded a serious medical need by interfering with his
   medical treatment or by denying him prescribed medication. See Lawson, 286
   F.3d at 262.
          To the extent that Hostetter properly raised a claim that the
   defendants denied him access to the courts by conspiring to cover up the
   accident and by failing to file a report about it, he did not sufficiently allege
   that the officers’ actions impeded his ability to prepare and transmit
   necessary legal documents to a court, see Brewer v. Wilkinson, 3 F.3d 816, 821
   (5th Cir. 1993), or to raise a nonfrivolous legal claim, see DeMarco, 914 F.3d
   at 387-88.
          On appeal, Hostetter also asserts new claims and factual allegations
   that were not raised in his complaint or at his Spears hearing related to Officer
   Doane’s driving and threats made by Captain Andrade and Deputy Chapa,
   which Hostetter claims resulted in his medicine being taken away. Although
   Hostetter initially made some of these allegations in his objections to the
   magistrate judge’s report, we will not consider them because they were not
   properly before the district court. See United States v. Armstrong, 951 F.2d
   626, 630 (5th Cir. 1992). Moreover, Hostetter has failed to brief, and has
   thus abandoned, any argument related to the district court’s denial of his
   requests to amend his complaint. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25
   (5th Cir. 1993).
          For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s judgment is
   AFFIRMED. As the district court explained, its dismissal of Hostetter’s
   complaint counts as a strike under § 1915(g). See Coleman v. Tollefson, 575
   U.S. 532, 537-39 (2015). Hostetter previously received a § 1915(g) strike
   based on the dismissal of another § 1983 suit. Hostetter v. City of Corpus

                                          4
Case: 23-40252     Document: 00517030928           Page: 5   Date Filed: 01/11/2024

                                    No. 23-40252

   Christi, No. 2:17-cv-295 (S.D. Tex., Nov. 28, 2017).            Hostetter is
   CAUTIONED that, if he accumulates three strikes, he will not be allowed
   to proceed 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 § 1915(g).

                                         5