Court Opinion

ID: 9379672
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-16 00:00:26.694701+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:32.566289
License: Public Domain

Case: 20-10964         Document: 00516677889             Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/15/2023

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

                                                                                       FILED
                                                                                  March 15, 2023
                                        No. 20-10964                              Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                       Clerk

   Jim B. Estes,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   Joseph Eastridge, RN, MSN, NP-C; Brian Collier,
   Executive Director, Texas Department of Criminal
   Justice; Dr. Talley, Medical Doctor, Director T.T.U.
   Robertson Unit; Dr. Robert Martin, Medical Doctor,
   Robertson Unit; Jackie Gregory, F.N.P. Robertson Unit,

                                                                   Defendant—Appellees.

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                                USDC No. 7:20-CV-98

   Before Jolly, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
   E. Grady Jolly, Circuit Judge:*
          Jim B. Estes is a Texas prisoner. He has filed this § 1983 civil rights
   complaint against his prison’s medical staff. Although he sought to proceed
   in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal, an IFP appeal is barred by the three-strikes

          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 20-10964         Document: 00516677889              Page: 2       Date Filed: 03/15/2023

                                          No. 20-10964

   rule, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), 1 unless he shows that he is “under imminent
   danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Because he has
   failed to make such a showing, we DENY Estes’s motion to proceed IFP on
   appeal, and the appeal is DISMISSED. 2
                                                I
           Estes suffers from chronic neck and back pain. Following his third
   spinal surgery, his specialist prescribed a back brace, tramadol, and
   gabapentin. Proceeding pro se, Estes filed this § 1983 claim, alleging that his
   prison’s medical staff withheld his back brace, refused to order his
   gabapentin, and decreased his tramadol dosage.                    He alleges that this
   “interference” caused him pain and led to a loss of mobility.
                                                II
           The magistrate judge recommended that Estes’s complaint be
   dismissed because Estes did not pay the filing fee and could not proceed IFP.
   Estes could not proceed IFP because the magistrate judge found that Estes
   had previously filed three lawsuits that were dismissed as frivolous, thereby
   triggering the three-strikes bar in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Furthermore, the
   magistrate judge concluded that Estes could not satisfy the “imminent-
   danger exception” to § 1915(g). Thus, since Estes did not pay the filing fee
   and could not proceed IFP, the magistrate judge recommended dismissing

           1
             “In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil
   action or proceeding under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions,
   while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the
   United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to
   state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent
   danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
           2
               Estes’s motion for the appointment of counsel on appeal is DENIED AS
   MOOT.

                                                2
Case: 20-10964       Document: 00516677889            Page: 3     Date Filed: 03/15/2023

                                       No. 20-10964

   the complaint. The district court adopted these findings and dismissed the
   complaint without prejudice.
          Estes appealed to this court. Although he moved in this court to
   proceed IFP on appeal, the motion was not properly before us because he
   failed to raise the issue in district court. 3 We thus held his appellate IFP
   motion in abeyance and remanded the case to the district court to assess
   Estes’s IFP status. See Estes v. Eastridge, No. 20-10964 (5th Cir. order
   entered May 25, 2021).
          Then back in the district court, Estes filed an amended motion to
   appeal the dismissal of his case IFP. In the motion, he made the same
   allegations as noted above. He further alleged, however, that his physical
   condition was deteriorating and that his “worsening condition [was]
   ongoing.”
          The magistrate judge concluded that the three-strikes bar still applied
   and that Estes did not qualify for the imminent-danger exception to the bar.
   The district court agreed, adopted the magistrate judge’s findings, and
   certified that the appeal was not taken in good faith. Accordingly, the district
   court denied Estes’s request to appeal IFP.
                                            III
          The case was then returned to us, putting before us four issues: (1) the
   denial of Estes’s motion to appeal IFP; (2) his request for the appointment
   of counsel on appeal; (3) his challenge to the district court’s bad faith
   certification; and (4) his appeal of the district court’s dismissal of his
   complaint.

          3
            See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1) (unrepresented litigants who wish to proceed in
   forma pauperis on appeal must file a motion in the district court).

                                            3
Case: 20-10964        Document: 00516677889              Page: 4      Date Filed: 03/15/2023

                                         No. 20-10964

           Addressing the first issue decides the case. No prisoner can proceed
   IFP on appeal if the prisoner has “three strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g),
   “unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.”
   Estes does not contest that he has three strikes. 4 He contends, however, that
   he qualifies for the imminent-danger exception to the three-strikes bar.
           We disagree. One general principle that guides us is that “complaints
   about the quality of [a prisoner’s] medical care are insufficient” to meet the
   imminent danger exception. Edmond v. Tex. Dep’t of Corrs., 161 F.3d 8, at *3
   (5th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (unpublished). 5 There may be instances in
   which a prisoner’s inadequate medical care may present a danger of serious
   physical injury. But here Estes only offers subjective complaints that his
   prison implemented a more conservative treatment plan than that
   recommended by his medical specialist. Thus, he has not shown that he is
   under imminent danger of serious physical injury sufficient to avoid the
   three-strikes bar. It follows, therefore, that his motion to proceed IFP on
   appeal is DENIED.
                                              IV
           Accordingly, Estes’s appeal is DISMISSED. Estes’s motion for the
   appointment of counsel on appeal is also DENIED AS MOOT.

           4
             See also Estes v. NFN Camargo, 491 F. App’x 474, 476 (5th Cir. 2012) (per curiam)
   (affirming dismissal, noting that Estes has three § 1915(g) strikes, and issuing a warning
   against future frivolous filings).
           5
             See also Thompson v. Allred Unit, No. 22-10641, 2022 WL 14461808, at *1 (5th
   Cir. Oct. 25, 2022) (per curiam); Clay v. UTMBH CMC Estelle Unit Med. Emps., 752 F.
   App’x 195, 196 (5th Cir. 2019) (per curiam); Sossamon v. Gregory, 735 F. App’x 158, 159
   (5th Cir. 2018) (per curiam); Clay v. Stephens, 597 F. App’x 261, 262 (5th Cir. 2015) (per
   curiam).

                                               4