Richard v. Jefferson Parish ( 2000 )


Menu:
  •                 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 00-30491
    Summary Calendar
    RYAN RICHARD; ET AL.,
    Plaintiffs,
    DENAUD EGANA,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    versus
    JEFFERSON PARISH; HARRY LEE;
    GARY SCHWABE,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    --------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Louisiana
    USDC No. 99-CV-1469-T
    --------------------
    December 8, 2000
    Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Denaud Egana, Louisiana prisoner # 410663, challenges the
    district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit as
    frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).   He asserts
    that his exposure to fresh paint fumes for a two-week period
    while the adjacent cellblock was being painted, causing him
    headaches and dizziness, violated his constitutional rights.
    *
    Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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    that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 CIR.
    R. 47.5.4.
    No. 00-30491
    -2-
    This court has a duty, sua sponte, to determine at the
    outset whether it has appellate jurisdiction.      Mosley v. Cozby,
    
    813 F.2d 659
    , 660 (5th Cir. 1987).     It is unclear whether Egana’s
    notice of appeal is timely because there is no indication in the
    record that he placed it in the prison mail system within 30 days
    of the district court’s judgment.     However, because his appeal is
    frivolous, remand for a determination on the issue would be
    futile.    See United States v. Alvarez, 
    210 F.3d 309
    , 310 (5th
    Cir. 2000).    Egana’s allegations do not show either that he was
    exposed to a risk of substantial harm or that the appellees were
    deliberately indifferent to any risk by failing to take
    reasonable measures to abate it.      See Farmer v. Brennan, 
    511 U.S. 825
    , 847 (1994); Ganther v. Ingle, 
    75 F.3d 207
    , 212 (5th Cir.
    1996).    Egana’s appeal is wholly without merit and is thus
    frivolous.    See Howard v. King, 
    707 F.2d 215
    , 219-20 (5th Cir.
    1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.    Accordingly, his appeal is DISMISSED for
    lack of jurisdiction.      See 
    Alvarez, 210 F.3d at 310
    .
    DISMISSED.