Adams v. Lumpkin ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • Case: 22-40362         Document: 00516666520             Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/06/2023
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Fifth Circuit                                         United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    ____________                                      FILED
    March 6, 2023
    No. 22-40362                                   Lyle W. Cayce
    Summary Calendar                                      Clerk
    ____________
    Mark Douglas Adams,
    Plaintiff—Appellant,
    versus
    Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
    Correctional Institutions Division,
    Defendant—Appellee.
    ______________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Texas
    USDC No. 6:21-CV-195
    ______________________________
    Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
    Per Curiam: *
    Mark Douglas Adams, Texas prisoner # 1509320, appeals the district
    court’s dismissal of his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action for failure to state a claim
    upon which relief may be granted and the magistrate judge’s denial of several
    postjudgment motions. Additionally, Adams has filed motions asking this
    court to admit all motions, exhibits, amended complaints, and briefs; for the
    _____________________
    *
    This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
    Case: 22-40362          Document: 00516666520       Page: 2     Date Filed: 03/06/2023
    No. 22-40362
    appointment of counsel; for a preliminary injunction and a temporary
    restraining order; and for leave to file documents supporting the motion for
    injunctive relief.
    As a threshold matter, we lack jurisdiction to consider any appeal from
    the magistrate judge’s denial of Adams’s postjudgment motions.                See
    Donaldson v. Ducote, 
    373 F.3d 622
    , 624 (5th Cir. 2004). Concerning the
    dismissal of his § 1983 action, Adams discusses only his claims alleging failure
    to protect, deliberate indifference to his medical needs, and excessive use of
    force. By his failure to brief, he has abandoned any challenge to the dismissal
    of his other claims. See Yohey v. Collins, 
    985 F.2d 222
    , 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).
    Following de novo review, we AFFIRM. See Geiger v. Jowers, 
    404 F.3d 371
    , 373 (5th Cir. 2005). “To establish a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff
    must (1) allege a violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the
    United States and (2) demonstrate that the alleged deprivation was
    committed by a person acting under color of state law.” Pratt v. Harris Cnty.,
    
    822 F.3d 174
    , 180 (5th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citation
    omitted). We discern no error in the dismissal of Adams’s claims alleging
    failure to protect, see Rogers v. Boatright, 
    709 F.3d 403
    , 407-08 (5th Cir. 2013);
    deliberate indifference to Adams’s medical needs, see Farmer v. Brennan, 
    511 U.S. 825
    , 837 (1994); and excessive use of force, see Williams v. Banks, 
    956 F.3d 808
    , 812 & n.11 (5th Cir. 2020); Woods v. Edwards, 
    51 F.3d 577
    , 583 (5th
    Cir. 1995).
    As for Adams’s four appellate motions, he has not shown that
    exceptional circumstances exist warranting the appointment of counsel on
    appeal, see Cooper v. Sheriff, Lubbock Cnty., 
    929 F.2d 1078
    , 1084 (5th Cir.
    1991), or that he is entitled to injunctive relief, see Byrum v. Landreth, 
    566 F.3d 442
    , 445 (5th Cir. 2009); Greene v. Fair, 
    314 F.2d 200
    , 202 (5th Cir.
    1963). Accordingly, we DENY his motions for the appointment of counsel
    2
    Case: 22-40362      Document: 00516666520          Page: 3   Date Filed: 03/06/2023
    No. 22-40362
    and for a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order. Adams’s
    motion to admit all motions, exhibits, amended complaints, and briefs is
    DENIED as unnecessary.           His motion for leave to file documents
    supporting the motion for injunctive relief is GRANTED. The referenced
    documents were considered in addressing Adams’s motion for injunctive
    relief. No further filings from Adams are permitted by this ruling. Finally,
    Adams is reminded that he is BARRED from proceeding in forma pauperis
    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 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (g); Coleman v. Tollefson, 
    575 U.S. 532
    , 534 (2015).
    3