Court Opinion

ID: 9955105
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-27 18:00:50.376575+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:16.101634
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-20510            Document: 43-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/27/2024

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

                                                                                    FILED
                                     No. 23-20510                             March 27, 2024
                                   ____________
                                                                               Lyle W. Cayce
Dwayne Rivens-Baker, Jr.,                                                           Clerk

                                                                  Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                          versus

UTMB Nurse Bintaben Shah; Jerry Sanchez, Warden;
Latoya Bradley; Dayo Fasola; Emezie Onyeahialam;
Michael Onwusa,

                                            Defendants—Appellees.
                   ______________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Southern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 4:22-CV-2462
                   ______________________________

Before Stewart, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
       Dwayne Rivens-Baker, Jr., Texas prisoner # 2064290, moves for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the summary judgment
dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.

       _____________________
       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-20510         Document: 43-1       Page: 2     Date Filed: 03/27/2024

                                No. 23-20510

       Rivens-Baker challenges the district court’s determination that he
failed to exhaust administrative remedies for his excessive force claims
against Latoya Bradley, Dayo Fasola, Emezie Onyeahialam, and Michael
Onwusa. He argues that he exhausted all of the remedies available to him
because his grievances were interfered with and were not processed or
returned as required under the grievance policies of the Texas Department
of Criminal Justice (TDCJ).      However, to exhaust his administrative
remedies, Rivens-Baker was required to pursue his grievances through both
Step 1 and Step 2, even if he failed to receive a proper response from the
TDCJ. See Johnson v. Johnson, 385 F.3d 503, 515 (5th Cir. 2004); see also
Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 n.6 (2001). Moreover, the record does
not contain, and Rivens-Baker does not point to, any grievances filed through
Step 2 concerning the excessive force incident at issue. Accordingly, Rivens-
Baker has not shown that he will raise a nonfrivolous issue regarding the
district court’s exhaustion determination. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215,
220 (5th Cir. 1983).
       Additionally,    Rivens-Baker       challenges   the   district   court’s
determination that his deliberate indifference claim against Nurse Bintaben
Shah was refuted by a video of the incident and documentary evidence. He
contends that this evidence supports his arguments. However, the district
court correctly described the videos and medical records provided by the
TDCJ, none of which support Rivens-Baker’s allegations. See Scott v. Harris,
550 U.S. 372, 378-81 (2007); Carnaby v. City of Hous., 636 F.3d 183, 187 (5th
Cir. 2011). In addition, although Rivens-Baker conclusorily asserts that he
was denied discovery from “medical defendant,” he does not identify this
defendant or explain how this discovery would have supported his claims.
Thus, he has not shown that he will raise a nonfrivolous issue regarding this
claim. See Howard, 707 F.2d at 220.

                                       2
Case: 23-20510         Document: 43-1       Page: 3    Date Filed: 03/27/2024

                                   No. 23-20510

         In his final point, Rivens-Baker argues that the district court erred in
denying his motions for the appointment of counsel. He concedes that “the
complexity of [his] case was not great,” but contends that his ability to
investigate the case was greatly hindered because he was “back [and] forth
on medical chain without legal materials” and because his “mental health
diagnosis [made] litigation extremely hard.” Rivens-Baker has not shown
that he will raise a nonfrivolous issue, as he has not identified any exceptional
circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel.             See Akasike v.
Fitzpatrick, 26 F.3d 510, 512 (5th Cir. 1994); Cooper v. Sheriff, Lubbock Cnty.,
929 F.2d 1078, 1084 (5th Cir. 1991); Howard, 707 F.2d at 220.
         Rivens-Baker does not challenge the district court’s determinations
that (1) his claims against the defendants in their official capacities were
barred by the Eleventh Amendment; (2) his claim that Shah falsified records
did not allege a constitutional violation as required under § 1983; and (3) his
claims against Assistant Warden Jerry Sanchez for failure to investigate and
for failure to properly train staff did not survive summary judgment.
Accordingly, he has abandoned any challenge to these determinations. See
Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.
1987).
         Because Rivens-Baker fails to show that his appeal involves 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, 707 F.2d at 220; 5th Cir. R. 42.2. His motion for
the appointment of counsel also 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 (2015). Rivens-Baker is WARNED that if he accumulates three strikes,

                                        3
Case: 23-20510       Document: 43-1       Page: 4    Date Filed: 03/27/2024

                                 No. 23-20510

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