Court Opinion

ID: 9901414
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-21 19:00:31.911009+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:32.556652
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-40311         Document: 00516975537             Page: 1      Date Filed: 11/21/2023

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

                                      ____________                                       FILED
                                                                                 November 21, 2023
                                       No. 23-40311                                   Lyle W. Cayce
                                     Summary Calendar                                      Clerk
                                     ____________

   Robert Lee Hicks,

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   Lieutenant Ivy; Sergeant Loudini; Sergeant Rodriguez;
   Sergeant Sikes; Doctor Haney; 3 to 4 Officers,

                                               Defendants—Appellees.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Eastern District of Texas
                                USDC No. 9:23-CV-47
                      ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Plaintiff-Appellant Robert Lee Hicks, a Texas inmate proceeding pro
   se and in forma pauperis, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C.
   § 1983 action as frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). We review

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-40311        Document: 00516975537         Page: 2    Date Filed: 11/21/2023

                                     No. 23-40311

   that dismissal for an abuse of discretion. Brewster v. Dretke, 587 F.3d 764, 767
   (5th Cir. 2009).
          Hicks first contends that the magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction to
   dismiss his complaint because he did not consent to proceed before a
   magistrate judge. He also faults the district court for failing to address tha
   jurisdictional claim. But, Hicks is mistaken. The case was referred to the
   magistrate judge by the district court for a report containing factual findings,
   legal conclusions, and a recommendation for a dispositive ruling, pursuant to
   § 636(b) and the local standing rules. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R.
   Civ. P. 72(b)(1). Hicks was then given the opportunity to object to the
   magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions prior to the district court’s entry
   of a dispositive order. See § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Hick’s
   consent to such reference was not required, compare § 636(c). Also, his
   contention to the contrary is meritless.
          Hicks next challenges the district court’s dismissal of his lawsuit as
   frivolous because of the untimely filing of the complaint. Hicks contends that
   his lawsuit was in fact timely filed. This contention is also unavailing. As the
   district court found, with the benefit of tolling while Hicks pursued his
   administrative remedies, the statute of limitations did not begin to run until
   February 3, 2021, and it expired two years later, on February 3, 2023. See
   Harris v. Hegmann, 198 F.3d 153, 156 (5th Cir. 1999); see also Price v. City of
   San Antonio, 431 F.3d 890, 892 (5th Cir. 2005); Rodriguez v. Holmes, 963 F.2d
   799, 805 (5th Cir. 1992). Even accepting as true Hicks’s assertion that he
   placed his complaint in the prison mail system for filing on February 22,
   2023, the complaint was untimely filed.
          For the first time on appeal, Hicks asserts that equitable tolling applies
   to save his suit. Assuming arguendo that this court should consider the newly
   raised claim, cf. Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 341-42 (5th

                                          2
Case: 23-40311      Document: 00516975537            Page: 3   Date Filed: 11/21/2023

                                     No. 23-40311

   Cir. 1999); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993), Hicks has not
   shown that he is entitled to equitable tolling.
          According to Hicks, the prison law library does not contain a copy of
   the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Grievance Operations Manual,
   thereby preventing him from learning the rules related to filing and pursuing
   a grievance. However, the record shows that the absence of the grievance
   operations manual did not affect Hick’s ability to file or pursue his
   grievances. Following the denial of his step-two grievance, Hicks failed to
   take any additional action to pursue his claims before the limitations period
   expired. He fails to explain his lack of action and, more specifically, fails to
   explain how the absence of the grievance operations manual prevented him
   from filing his § 1983 lawsuit within the two-year limitations period following
   the denial of his step-two grievance. See Ramirez v. City of San Antonio, 312
   F.3d 178, 183 (5th Cir. 2002); Smith v. J-Hite, Inc., 127 S.W.3d 837, 843 (Tex.
   App. 2003). His own negligence in failing to pursue his rights does not
   warrant equitable tolling. See Hand v. Stevens Transp., Inc. Empl. Benefit Plan,
   83 S.W.3d 286, 293 (Tex. App. 2002). Neither does Hicks contend that he
   was actively misled or prevented in some extraordinary way from filing his
   lawsuit. Thus, he has failed to demonstrate that equitable tolling applies. See
   Ramirez, 312 F.3d at 183; see also Hand, 83 S.W.3d at 293.
          The district court’s judgment is therefore affirmed, and its dismissal
   of Hicks’s complaint as frivolous counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. §
   1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996),
   abrogated in part on other grounds, Coleman v. Tollefson, 575 U.S. 532, 537
   (2015). Hicks also has at least one prior strike. See Hicks v. Pinney, No. 6:21-
   CV-00171-ADA (dismissed as frivolous May 24, 2021). He is therefore
   warned that, if he accumulates three strikes, he may not thereafter proceed
   IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in

                                          3
Case: 23-40311      Document: 00516975537          Page: 4   Date Filed: 11/21/2023

                                    No. 23-40311

   any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See
   28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

                                         4