Court Opinion

ID: 9947389
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-04 19:01:19.860887+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:24.643069
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10941            Document: 40-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/04/2024

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit
                                   ____________
                                                                             United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                      Fifth Circuit
                                     No. 23-10941
                                   ____________                                     FILED
                                                                                March 4, 2024
Allen Lee Bell,                                                                Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                    Clerk
                                                                  Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                          versus

Sheriff Terry L. Morgan, Garza County Sheriff’s Office; Philip
Mack Furlow, Garza County District Attorney; Arthur Aguilar,
Jr., Attorney at Law,

                                            Defendants—Appellees.
                   ______________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Northern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 5:22-CV-135
                   ______________________________

Before Clement, Engelhardt, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
       Allen Lee Bell, Texas prisoner # 2400777, filed a civil rights complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The magistrate judge dismissed his complaint
for failure to state a claim and as frivolous and because defendants were
immune from suit. Bell has now filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (IFP) on appeal, which constitutes a challenge to the district court’s
       _____________________
       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10941        Document: 40-1       Page: 2     Date Filed: 03/04/2024

                                  No. 23-10941

certification that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. See Baugh v.
Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). This court’s inquiry into whether
an appeal is taken in good faith “is limited to whether the appeal involves
‘legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).’”
Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (citation omitted).
Although Bell maintains that the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act and the
denial of IFP status violates his right of access to the courts, he is incorrect.
See Norton v. Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286, 290-91 (5th Cir. 1997).
       Before this court, Bell does not challenge the magistrate judge’s
conclusion that he was not entitled to injunctive relief, and any such
argument is deemed abandoned. See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy
Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). He does, however, repeat
his assertions that the individual defendants violated his constitutional rights
through various actions taken throughout his criminal proceedings. The
magistrate judge concluded that the prosecutor and state judge were immune
from suit, that Bell’s criminal defense attorney was not a state actor, and that
the county sheriff was not personally involved in any of the challenged actions
and was not liable in his supervisory capacity. See Polk Cnty. v. Dodson, 454
U.S. 312, 317-18 (1981); Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 427-28 (1976);
Davis v. Tarrant Cnty., 565 F.3d 214, 221 (5th Cir. 2009); Thompkins v. Belt,
828 F.2d 298, 303 (5th Cir. 1987). The magistrate judge also ruled that Bell’s
conclusional allegations of a conspiracy were insufficient. Bell’s repeated
assertions that his constitutional rights have been violated, combined with his
contentions that a conspiracy to violate an individual’s civil rights warrants
relief, do not present a nonfrivolous appellate argument. See Grant v. Cuellar,
59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995); Brinkmann, 813 F.2d at 748.
       In addition, Bell maintains that Garza County should be held
responsible under a theory of municipal liability. As the magistrate judge
found, Bell has failed to set forth an official policy or a pattern of behavior

                                       2
Case: 23-10941        Document: 40-1       Page: 3     Date Filed: 03/04/2024

                                  No. 23-10941

leading to the violation of his constitutional rights, and he has not identified
a policymaker responsible for such a policy. See Hicks-Fields v. Harris Cnty.,
860 F.3d 803, 808 (5th Cir. 2017). Bell does not present a nonfrivolous
appellate argument regarding the dismissal of his municipal liability claims.
       Finally, Bell has not set forth a nonfrivolous appellate argument
relating to the magistrate judge’s alternative conclusion that his challenges
to his 2021 guilty plea leading to his deferred adjudication for failure to
appear, his 2022 arrest and charges for failure to register as a sex offender,
and the state court’s ultimate revocation of community supervision on his
2021 criminal proceedings would call into question the validity of his
conviction, which has not been reversed or overturned.               See Heck
v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994).           To the extent that Bell is
complaining about additional criminal proceedings for the first time in this
appeal, we decline to consider the claims in the first instance. See Yohey
v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993).
       Bell does not make the requisite showing that he has a nonfrivolous
issue for appeal. See Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. Accordingly, his motion to
proceed IFP is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See
Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.              Bell’s motion for
appointment of counsel on appeal is likewise DENIED.
       The district court’s dismissal of Bell’s complaint as frivolous, for
failure to state a claim, and for suing immune defendants and this court’s
dismissal of this appeal as frivolous count as strikes under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g). See Prescott v. UTMB Galveston Tex., 73 F.4th 315, 319-20 (5th Cir.
2023). Bell is CAUTIONED 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