Court Opinion

ID: 9555072
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-10 18:00:44.459181+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:41:06.562147
License: Public Domain

Case: 20-30715         Document: 00516852908             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/10/2023

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

                                      ____________                                     FILED
                                                                                 August 10, 2023
                                        No. 20-30715                              Lyle W. Cayce
                                      ____________                                     Clerk

   Francis Brown,

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   Tim Hooper, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary,

                                                Defendant—Appellee.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Middle District of Louisiana
                                USDC No. 3:19-CV-763
                      ______________________________

   Before Richman, Chief Judge, and Jones and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Louisiana prisoner Francis Brown filed a § 1983 action against the war-
   den of the Louisiana State Penitentiary alleging deliberate indifference to a
   serious medical need. He later filed a document titled “Notice of Judicial
   Adjudication” making a First Amendment retaliation claim by alleging that
   he received a false misbehavior report in retaliation for utilizing the prison
   grievance process and filing a lawsuit. For pro se prisoners, the label placed

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 20-30715      Document: 00516852908          Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/10/2023

                                    No. 20-30715

   on a filing is not determinative and may be recharacterized by a court “ac-
   cording to the essence of the prisoner’s claims.” Solsona v. Warden, FCI, 821
   F.2d 1129, 1132 n.1 (5th Cir. 1987). The district court should have construed
   the filing as a motion for leave to amend the complaint. See Ganther v. Ingle,
   75 F.3d 207, 211–12 (5th Cir. 1996) (“The district court should have con-
   strued Ganther’s response to the motion for summary judgment as a motion
   to amend his complaint.”).
          The magistrate judge recommended the district court dismiss the
   complaint as legally frivolous under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A. The
   magistrate found Brown’s claims for deliberate indifference lacked merit and
   named the wrong defendant. It made no recommendation on the First
   Amendment claim. The district court adopted the recommendation over
   Brown’s objections, stating that the “retaliation claims are not in his Com-
   plaint, but rather in a separate notice of judicial adjudication, and therefore
   are not the subject of this order.”
          The district court ultimately entered judgment in the case without ad-
   dressing the First Amendment claim. Although the district court never ruled
   on the notice, the court’s entry of judgment without granting leave to amend
   constitutes an implicit denial. See Norman v. Apache Corp., 19 F.3d 1017, 1021
   (5th Cir. 1994) (“The denial of a motion by the district court, although not
   formally expressed, may be implied by the entry of a final judgment or of an
   order inconsistent with the granting of relief sought by the motion.”).
          On appeal, Brown argues that the district court shouldn’t have dis-
   missed his First Amendment claim. As we have repeatedly observed, we are
   a court of review, not first review. Accordingly, we vacate and remand to the
   district court to consider the First Amendment retaliation claim in the first
   instance.

                                         2