Court Opinion

ID: 9759068
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:02:31.116088+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:13:13.574870
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-40213       Document: 00516875472             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/28/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                         United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                          Fifth Circuit
                                    ____________
                                                                                        FILED
                                                                                  August 28, 2023
                                      No. 23-40213
                                    ____________                                   Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                        Clerk
   Santiago Mason Gomez,

                                                                   Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                           versus

   Odunay O. Kuku; Assistant Warden LaMorris Marshall;
   Assistant Warden Juan J. Nunez; Lieutenant A.
   Abdulmalik; Sergeant Mis Enojosa,

                                             Defendants—Appellees.
                    ______________________________

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Eastern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 6:22-CV-457
                    ______________________________

   Before Jones, Higginson, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
           Santiago Mason Gomez, Texas prisoner # 01852089, filed a 42 U.S.C.
   § 1983 complaint in the Eastern District of Texas alleging that various
   employees of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) were

           _____________________
          *
              Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion
   should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set
   forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 23-40213       Document: 00516875472          Page: 2    Date Filed: 08/28/2023

                                     No. 23-40213

   conspiring to have him killed; one of the means of effectuating that plan was
   to proclaim that Gomez had previously died, which would then allow the
   other inmates to kill him without repercussions. Claims involving some
   defendants located in the Southern District of Texas were severed and
   transferred to that court.     The district court dismissed the allegations
   remaining in Gomez’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief
   may be granted and denied Gomez leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP)
   on appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). Gomez has now filed a motion for
   authorization to proceed IFP on appeal, which constitutes a challenge to the
   district court’s certification that any appeal would not be taken in good faith
   because Gomez will not present a nonfrivolous appellate issue. See Baugh v.
   Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).
            Before this court, Gomez argues that he filed his lawsuit based on the
   danger to his life and that the dismissal of his action will result in his death.
   He also appears to assert that he had a First Amendment right to provide
   information about individuals responsible for contraband in the prisons,
   which he alleges was the impetus for the plot against him. He does not,
   however, address the conclusions of the district court that his vague
   allegations were insufficient to show that the defendants were part of a far-
   reaching TDCJ conspiracy or that their actions resulted in harm to him. His
   failure to make these arguments results in the abandonment of his claims. See
   Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.
   1987).
            Gomez does contend that the district court was biased and dismissed
   his lawsuit and denied him IFP status in retaliation for his assertion that he
   would hold the court responsible for any harm he suffers and that he should
   not suffer retaliation for engaging in his First Amendment rights, including
   his right to file the instant lawsuit. He does not present a nonfrivolous
   argument showing that the dismissal of his lawsuit was the result of judicial

                                          2
Case: 23-40213      Document: 00516875472          Page: 3   Date Filed: 08/28/2023

                                    No. 23-40213

   bias. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994); Baugh, 117 F.3d at
   202.
          Gomez also asserts that the district court erred in denying his request
   for appointment of counsel. This does not constitute a nonfrivolous appellate
   issue, as he has not established exceptional circumstances warranting
   appointment of an attorney. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202; Jackson v. Dallas
   Police Dep’t, 811 F.2d 260, 261 (5th Cir. 1986); Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d
   209, 212-13 (5th Cir. 1982).
          The appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. See Howard
   v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, Gomez’s motion to
   proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See
   5th Cir. R. 42.2. The dismissal 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, Coleman v. Tollefson, 575 U.S. 532,
   537 (2015).    In addition, the district court’s dismissal of the original
   complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted also
   counts as a strike. See § 1915(g); Adepegba, 103 F.3d at 388. Gomez 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