Court Opinion

ID: 9841501
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-22 18:00:29.253101+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:28.739948
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-20060         Document: 00516904811             Page: 1      Date Filed: 09/22/2023

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

                                      ____________                                     FILED
                                                                              September 22, 2023
                                       No. 23-20060
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
                                     Summary Calendar                                  Clerk
                                     ____________

   LaTorrence Torell Newman,

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   Rodger Bowers, Warden; Julia Rodriguez, Major; Doctor
   Paul A. Hindmon; Robin Rothrock, Doctor,

                                               Defendants—Appellees.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Southern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:22-CV-1649
                      ______________________________

   Before Haynes, Willett, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         LaTorrence Torell Newman, Texas prisoner #2030330, moves to
   proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C.
   § 1983 complaint against Warden Rodger Bowers, Major Julia Rodriguez, Dr.
   Paul Hindmon, and Dr. Robin Rothrock regarding his treatment while in the

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-20060       Document: 00516904811         Page: 2   Date Filed: 09/22/2023

                                    No. 23-20060

   Wynne Unit for failure to state a claim or as moot. He also moves for the
   appointment of counsel.
          Newman argues that his correspondence with Wynne Unit prison
   officials regarding compliance with his previous settlement agreement was
   ignored and that he faced retaliation. However, he has not demonstrated a
   nonfrivolous issue regarding the district court’s determination that his claims
   based on the defendants’ failure to comply with the settlement agreement
   failed to state a claim because he did not allege that they violated any of his
   rights when officials cut other inmates’ facial hair and because he could not
   act as counsel for other inmates. See Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 410 (1991);
   Barrows v. Jackson, 346 U.S. 249, 255 (1953); Gonzales v. Wyatt, 157 F.3d
   1016, 1021 (5th Cir. 1998). To the extent that he newly alleges retaliation on
   appeal, he may not do so. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339,
   342 (5th Cir. 1999).
          He also contends that when he was transferred to the Johnson Unit on
   December 16, 2022, Officer Eagan made him shave off his goatee, even
   though he showed Eagan proof that he had won his settlement. However, he
   did not include the facts or defendants involved in this intervening incident
   in his amended complaint or in his response to the court’s order for a more
   definite statement, and he may not raise new claims for the first time on
   appeal. See id.
          Newman’s argument regarding mootness involves only his claims
   regarding the facial-hair policy, which were not dismissed as moot, rather
   than his claims against Hindmon and Rothrock regarding their refusal to help
   him move to a dormitory after he complained of secondhand K-2 smoke from
   his cellmates, which were dismissed as moot. Thus, he fails to meaningfully
   brief this issue, and it is abandoned. See Hughes v. Johnson, 191 F.3d 607, 613
   (5th Cir. 1999); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Even

                                         2
Case: 23-20060       Document: 00516904811          Page: 3   Date Filed: 09/22/2023

                                     No. 23-20060

   if his argument could be read as a challenge to the district court’s ruling on
   this claim against Hindmon and Rothrock, Newman does not meaningfully
   challenge the district court’s alternative determination that he failed to state
   a claim because there was no indication that Hindmon and Rothrock had any
   ability to affect his cell assignment. Additionally, his arguments that Bowers
   and Rodriguez ignored his requests to move him out of a cell with secondhand
   smoke do not address the district court’s determination that he failed to state
   a claim regarding this issue because he did not have a liberty interest in being
   housed in a particular facility. Any challenge to this determination is also
   abandoned. See Hughes, 191 F.3d at 613; Yohey, 985 F.2d at 224-25;
   Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.
   1987).
            Likewise, Newman does not challenge the district court’s
   determinations that (1) he failed to state a claim against Bowers and
   Rodriguez in their official capacities because they were entitled to Eleventh
   Amendment immunity, and (2) he failed to state a claim regarding his
   argument that Rodriguez violated prison policy. Thus, he has abandoned
   these issues as well. See Hughes, 191 F.3d at 613; Yohey, 985 F.2d at 224-25;
   Brinkmann, 813 F.2d at 748.
            Because Newman fails to show that his appeal raises a nonfrivolous
   issue, his motion to proceed IFP is DENIED, and the appeal is
   DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 n.24 (5th
   Cir. 1997); Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R.
   42.2. Additionally, his motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED,
   and, to the extent he moves for summary judgment, his motion is DENIED.
            This dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a strike under 28
   U.S.C. § 1915(g); see 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

                                           3
Case: 23-20060      Document: 00516904811          Page: 4   Date Filed: 09/22/2023

                                    No. 23-20060

   (2015). Newman is WARNED that if he accumulates three strikes, he will
   be 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).

                                             4