Court Opinion

ID: 9401413
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-13 00:01:20.514661+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:52.539484
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10010        Document: 00516783598             Page: 1      Date Filed: 06/12/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 23-10010
                                     ____________                                     FILED
                                                                                  June 12, 2023
   Tujuan Estaisyo Session,                                                      Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                      Clerk
                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   FNU Giannotti, Texas Department of Criminal Justice Robertson Unit
   Employee; FNU Haines, Texas Department of Criminal Justice Robertson
   Unit Pill Nurse; FNU Cano, Texas Department of Criminal Justice Unit
   Assistant Warden; J. Lopez, Texas Department of Criminal Justice
   Robertson Unit Assistant Warden; FNU Reyes, Texas Department of
   Criminal Justice Robertson Unit Grievance Staff,

                                              Defendants—Appellees.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 1:20-CV-116
                     ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10010       Document: 00516783598            Page: 2      Date Filed: 06/12/2023

                                       No. 23-10010

          Tujuan Estaisyo Session, Texas prisoner # 1714978, moves to proceed
   in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal following the magistrate judge’s dismissal 1
   of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims as frivolous and for failing to state a claim upon
   which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and
   1915(e)(2)(B). He also now moves this court to order the production certain
   documents that he asserts support his § 1983 claims and to amend the caption
   to add certain individuals as defendants-appellees.
          In his § 1983 complaint, Session alleged that defendants used
   excessive force against him and were deliberately indifferent to his serious
   medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. He also alleged that
   defendants violated his due process rights by failing to properly investigate
   his grievances. His claims stemmed from an incident during which one of the
   defendants spat on him and joked afterwards that he gave Session
   coronavirus. Session alleged that he later suffered injuries—a bad cold and
   pink eye—from the incident.
          By moving to proceed IFP, Session is challenging the magistrate
   judge’s certification decision that his 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) (internal quotation marks and
   citation omitted).
          In the order dismissing Session’s complaint, upon which the
   certification decision was based, the magistrate judge assumed that even if it
          _____________________
          1
              The magistrate judge’s order is a final, appealable order over which we have
   jurisdiction, as Session unambiguously consented to the authorization of the magistrate
   judge to conduct proceedings and enter final judgments in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
   § 636(c)(1).

                                                 2
Case: 23-10010       Document: 00516783598           Page: 3   Date Filed: 06/12/2023

                                      No. 23-10010

   was plausible that Session sustained physical injuries as a result of the
   incident, Session could not show a nonfrivolous issue regarding whether his
   injuries, a three-day-long cold and a case of pink eye, were more than de
   minimis when considered in the context of the amount of force allegedly
   used, and that the officer’s use of threatening language did not amount to a
   constitutional violation. Although we have never “directly held that injuries
   must reach beyond some arbitrary threshold to satisfy an excessive force
   claim,” Brown v. Lippard, 472 F.3d 384, 386 (5th Cir. 2006), our precedent
   indicates that the claimant “must have suffered from the excessive force
   more than a de minimis physical injury,” Gomez v. Chandler, 163 F.3d 921,
   924 (5th Cir. 1999). And “mere threatening language and gestures of a
   custodial officer do not, even if true, amount to constitutional violations.”
   See McFadden v. Lucas, 713 F.2d 143, 146 (5th Cir. 1983). The magistrate
   judge also concluded that Session failed to allege facts showing that he had
   an objectively serious medical need that was disregarded by any prison official
   or that he suffered substantial harm because of any delay in medical
   treatment. See Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 346 (5th Cir. 2006); Sims v.
   Griffin, 35 F.4th 945, 949 (5th Cir. 2022) (“[A] serious medical need is one
   for which treatment has been recommended or for which the need is so
   apparent that even laymen would recognize that care is required.” (internal
   quotation marks and citation omitted)).
            Session has not shown that he will raise legal points arguable on their
   merits (and therefore not frivolous) on appeal with respect to these claims.
   Additionally, because “any alleged due process violation arising from the
   alleged failure to investigate [an inmate’s] grievances is indisputably
   meritless,” Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371 374 (5th Cir. 2005), he cannot show
   that he will raise legal points arguable on their merits with respect to that
   issue.

                                               3
Case: 23-10010      Document: 00516783598          Page: 4   Date Filed: 06/12/2023

                                    No. 23-10010

          Accordingly, because Session has not shown that his appeal will
   involve a nonfrivolous issue, his motion to proceed IFP on appeal is
   DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d
   at 202 n.24; Howard, 707 F.2d at 220; 5th Cir. R. 42.2. His motions for
   production of documents and to amend the caption are also DENIED.
          The district court’s dismissal of the suit under § 1915A(b)(1) and our
   dismissal of this appeal as frivolous each count as strikes under 28 U.S.C.
   § 1915(g). See Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez, 140 S. Ct. 1721, 1724-25 (2020);
   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). Session 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).

                                             4