eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2021-02

Wells v. Collier ( 2021 )


Menu:
 
  • Case: 20-40251      Document: 00515730226         Page: 1    Date Filed: 02/02/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit                         United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
February 2, 2021
No. 20-40251
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar                        Clerk
William J. Wells,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Bryan Collier; Kevin Wheat; Gregory Vaughn,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 9:17-CV-80
Before Wiener, Southwick, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
William J. Wells, Texas prisoner # 899684, filed this
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
    suit to seek redress after he was exposed to unhygienic conditions at the
prison and became ill. He appeals the district court’s grant of the defendants’
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) motion, arguing that the district court
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-40251       Document: 00515730226            Page: 2     Date Filed: 02/02/2021
No. 20-40251
erred by dismissing his suit because his claims were valid, because it was
timely, and because he showed the defendants’ personal involvement. He
does not address the district court’s conclusion that the defendants were
entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity and thus has waived any
challenge he may have had to this determination. See Yohey v. Collins,
    985 F.2d 222
    , 225 (5th Cir. 1993).
Review of the district court’s grant of a Rule 12(c) motion for
judgment on the pleadings is under the same de novo standard as is used for
a ruling on a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.
Gentilello v. Rege,
    627 F.3d 540
    , 543-44 (5th Cir. 2010). A motion to dismiss
will not be granted if the complaint raises a plausible claim. Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
    556 U.S. 662
    , 678 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
    550 U.S. 544
    , 570
(2007). Conversely, a complaint is properly dismissed if it does not state
sufficient facts to set forth a plausible claim or if the claims it raises are merely
speculative. Bass v. Stryker Corp.,
    669 F.3d 501
    , 506 (5th Cir. 2012).
To raise a viable § 1983 claim, one must show that a state actor
infringed his constitutional rights. Pratt v. Harris Cnty., Tex.,
    822 F.3d 174
    ,
180 (5th Cir. 2016). “Personal involvement is an essential element of a civil
rights cause of action.” Thompson v. Steele,
    709 F.2d 381
    , 382 (5th Cir. 1983);
Cass v. City of Abilene,
    814 F.3d 721
    , 728 (5th Cir. 2016). Because Wells made
only conclusional assertions concerning the defendants’ involvement in the
events underlying his suit, there is no error in connection with the district
court’s dismissal of his suit, and it is unnecessary to consider his timeliness
arguments. See Romero v. Brown,
    937 F.3d 514
    , 523-24 (5th Cir. 2019). The
district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
2