Court Opinion

ID: 9941184
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-16 01:01:20.012245+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:19.746652
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-40547        Document: 00517065754             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/15/2024

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                        United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                                      FILED
                                                                               February 15, 2024
                                      No. 23-40547
                                     ____________                                Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                      Clerk
   Anthony Bernard Wingfield,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Unknown Garner, CO; Unknown Hinejosa, CO; Unknown
   Ellis, Sergeant, Michael Unit; Unknown Garner, Sergeant, Michael
   Unit; Unknown Cunningham, Sergeant, Michael Unit; Unknown
   Marshon, CO, Michael Unit,

                                              Defendants—Appellees.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Eastern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 6:21-CV-320
                     ______________________________

   Before Haynes, Willett, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Anthony Bernard Wingfield, Texas prisoner #1896078, filed a civil
   rights complaint, alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans
   with Disabilities Act (ADA). The district court dismissed his complaint for
   failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and because the

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-40547      Document: 00517065754           Page: 2    Date Filed: 02/15/2024

                                     No. 23-40547

   defendants were immune from suit. Wingfield has now filed a motion for
   authorization to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal, which
   constitutes a challenge to the district court’s certification that any appeal
   would not be taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th
   Cir. 1997). Our inquiry into whether the appeal is taken in good faith “is
   limited to whether the appeal involves ‘legal points arguable on their merits
   (and therefore not frivolous).’” “[P]robable success” need not be shown for
   an appeal to be in good faith. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.
   1983) (citation omitted).
          Wingfield argues that the defendants had confiscated his shoes
   without authorization, even though he was an amputee and the shoes were
   medically necessary. In addition, he maintains that defendant Ellis witnessed
   one of the confiscations but refused to intervene or contact the medical
   department. He concedes that the shoes were returned to him. Wingfield also
   asserts that the defendants refused to bring him to an appointment at the
   brace and limb clinic for alterations of his prosthesis because Wingfield was
   not wearing appropriate footwear. Although the prison changed the footwear
   policy the next day, Wingfield was not permitted to visit the clinic for 38 days.
   He does not address the district court’s conclusions that the defendants were
   entitled to qualified immunity or that any claims against the defendants in
   their official capacities were barred by the Eleventh Amendment, and any
   such arguments are abandoned. See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff
   Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
          As to his deliberate indifference claims, Wingfield alleges that on two
   occasions his medically necessary shoes were taken from him and on one of
   these occasions his lack of shoes resulted in his inability to access the brace
   and limb clinic, which in turn caused him to “suffer” for 38 days. He also
   contends that it was apparent that he is an amputee, the shoes “were serious
   medical need,” and that Cunningham confiscated his shoes the second time

                                          2
Case: 23-40547     Document: 00517065754          Page: 3   Date Filed: 02/15/2024

                                   No. 23-40547

   “after seeing medical paper-work.” Wingfield has presented a nonfrivolous
   issue of whether the defendants were aware of a substantial risk of serious
   harm, and whether the confiscation of the shoes created a substantial risk of
   serious harm. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 837 (1994).
         “The existence of any nonfrivolous issue on appeal is sufficient to
   require that this Court grant the inmates’ present motion.” Howard, 707
   F.2d at 220 (citing Carson v. Polley, 689 F.3d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982)).
   Wingfield has also demonstrated financial eligibility to proceed IFP. See
   Carson, 689 F.3d at 586. Accordingly, Wingfield’s motion to proceed IFP on
   appeal is GRANTED.

                                         3