Court Opinion

ID: 9909784
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-14 01:00:39.246467+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:44.406989
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50574         Document: 00517000230             Page: 1      Date Filed: 12/13/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                        No. 23-50574
                                      ____________                                     FILED
                                                                               December 13, 2023
   Sara Herrera,                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                       Clerk
                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   University Health Texas Vista Medical Center; Ethan
   D. Hinds; Melissa Johnnidis,

                                               Defendants—Appellees.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                                USDC No. 5:22-CV-1316
                      ______________________________

   Before Jolly, Engelhardt, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Sara Herrera appeals the dismissal of her civil rights claims and the
   denial of her motion to appoint counsel. On March 28, 2023, the district
   court adopted a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and
   dismissed Herrera’s case as frivolous and for failing to state a claim under 28

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50574         Document: 00517000230              Page: 2       Date Filed: 12/13/2023

                                          No. 23-50574

   § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & (ii). 1 ROA.135-36. The district court consequently
   denied her motion for appointment of counsel as moot. ROA.135-36. Now
   on appeal, Herrera advances the same claims as she did below, namely that
   she was involuntarily committed to the defendant hospitals where she was
   misdiagnosed and generally given inadequate treatment. She asserts that her
   claims are not frivolous. Appellant’s Br. at 26.
            Regarding dismissal pursuant to 28 § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), we review a
   determination by a district court that a case is frivolous for abuse of
   discretion. See Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997). Under
   this highly deferential legal standard, “[a]n abuse of discretion exists only
   when there is definite and firm conviction that the court below committed
   clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon a weighing of the
   relevant factors.” Conkling v. Turner, 18 F.3d 1285, 1293 (5th Cir. 1994)
   (internal quotation marks omitted).                A dismissal pursuant to 28 §
   1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) warrants the same de novo standard as used to review
   dismissal pursuant to 12(b)(6). Black v. Warren, 134 F.3d 732, 734 (5th Cir.
   1998).
            When adopting the magistrate judge’s findings, the district court held
   that Herrera’s bare assertions failed to state a federal claim that could satisfy
   its jurisdictional requirements. ROA.122-28. Now on appeal, in her merits
   brief, Herrera recites her district court arguments, but she does not argue or
   show how the dismissal of her complaint and denial of her motion for
   appointment of counsel denied her any legal or constitutional right to which
   she is arguably entitled. Appellant’s Br. at 28-30.

            _____________________
            1
             “[T]he court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that…the
   action or appeal…is frivolous or malicious [or] fails to state a claim on which relief may be
   granted…” 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

                                                2
Case: 23-50574     Document: 00517000230           Page: 3   Date Filed: 12/13/2023

                                    No. 23-50574

          We therefore hold that the district court judgment dismissing
   Herrera’s complaint and request for counsel is in all respects
                                                                    AFFIRMED.

                                         3