Court Opinion

ID: 9399666
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-06 00:00:40.642484+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:33.421675
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-30109         Document: 00516775443             Page: 1      Date Filed: 06/05/2023

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

                                      ____________                               FILED
                                                                              June 5, 2023
                                       No. 23-30109                          Lyle W. Cayce
                                     Summary Calendar                             Clerk
                                     ____________

   Antoine Edwards,

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   Luke Rheems, Colonel; Nettle, Warden; Simon, Colonel; Reed,
   Captain; Tim Hooper, Warden; Calvart, Major; Department
   of Public Safety and Correction of Louisiana State
   Penitentiary,

                                               Defendants—Appellees.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Middle District of Louisiana
                                USDC No. 3:22-CV-290
                      ______________________________

   Before King, Jones, and Smith, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Antoine Edwards, Louisiana prisoner # 748056, seeks leave to
   proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his
   42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The district court concluded that Edwards’s

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-30109        Document: 00516775443          Page: 2    Date Filed: 06/05/2023

                                      No. 23-30109

   challenge to a disciplinary conviction based on a false report from a prison
   officer was frivolous and failed to state a claim upon which relief could be
   granted.   In addition, the court dismissed without prejudice Edward’s
   additional federal claims, which included challenges to the validity of his
   conviction and to various unrelated incidents occurring in the prison, after
   concluding that they were improperly joined in a single action. See Fed. R.
   Civ. P. 18, 20(a)(2).        The court declined to exercise supplemental
   jurisdiction over any state law claims. By moving in this court to proceed
   IFP, Edwards is challenging the district court’s certification that any appeal
   would not be taken in good faith because he had not shown that he will
   present a nonfrivolous appellate issue. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 220
   (5th Cir. 1997).
          Before this court, Edwards chiefly argues the merits of the various
   claims dismissed by the district court on grounds of misjoinder. He does,
   however, contend that he is being deprived of his right to petition the court
   for grievances, presumably based on the order stating that he could raise his
   additional claims in separate causes of action. He has not established that he
   is entitled to present all of his challenges to his prison conditions and all
   disciplinary actions in a single civil rights action. See Patton v. Jefferson Corr.
   Ctr., 136 F.3d 458, 464 (5th Cir. 1998). He also contends that with respect
   to the claim the district court did address on the merits, the court was
   wrongly acting as a lawyer for the defendants by treating the officer who
   purportedly filed a false disciplinary report against him as a defendant,
   although Edwards did not identify him as such. To the extent that this is a
   challenge to the district court’s decision to address one claim on the merits
   if Edwards did not comply with the order to amend his complaint, Edwards
   did raise a challenge to the disciplinary proceeding implicating that officer,
   and the district court properly considered it as a separate transaction or
   occurrence. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)(A).

                                               2
Case: 23-30109      Document: 00516775443           Page: 3    Date Filed: 06/05/2023

                                     No. 23-30109

          In addition, Edwards appears to be alleging that the dismissal of his
   action constituted a denial of due process. To the extent that this contention
   is raised for the first time on appeal, we decline to address the claim. See
   Hannah v. United States, 523 F.3d 597, 600 n.1 (5th Cir. 2008). Even if
   Edwards did raise a due process argument in the district court, his
   conclusional assertions are insufficient to present a claim for relief. See Grant
   v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995); Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy
   Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
          As for the challenge to the disciplinary conviction, Edwards does not
   challenge the bases relied upon by the district court for dismissal, so any such
   argument is abandoned. See Brinkmann, 813 F.2d at 748. To the extent that
   Edwards’s assertion that the district court wrongly treated the officer filing
   the disciplinary report as a defendant constitutes a challenge to the district
   court’s ruling on this issue, he has not explained how this decision affected
   his rights.
          The appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. See Howard
   v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, Edwards’s motion
   to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See
   5th Cir. R. 42.2. The dismissal as frivolous of this appeal 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 (2015). Edwards is WARNED that if he accumulates three strikes,
   he will no longer be allowed 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).

                                              3