Jermaine Ramsey v. Mgmt Training & Corporation, et ( 2020 )

Case: 19-60820 Document: 00515645439 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/19/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
November 19, 2020
No. 19-60820
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Jermaine Alexander Ramsey,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Management Training & Corporation, MTC; Warden
Patricia Doty; Deputy Warden Harold Taylor; Hunter
Williamson, Chief Medical Personnel,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 4:18-CV-178
Before Dennis, Southwick, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Jermaine Alexander Ramsey, Mississippi prisoner # 108263, moves
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the summary
judgment dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit wherein he sought damages
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 19-60820 Document: 00515645439 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/19/2020
No. 19-60820
against the private operator, warden, deputy warden, and chief medical
officer of the Marshall County Correctional Facility based on alleged
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs and retaliation. By
moving to proceed IFP, Ramsey challenges the district court’s certification
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
24(a)(3) that his appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117
F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). The 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) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
In his brief before this court, Ramsey presents only conclusional
assertions that the defendants denied or delayed access to medical care and
failed to provide adequate staffing. He offers no argument addressing the
individual defendants’ personal involvement in his alleged injuries or the
magistrate judge’s conclusion that he failed to satisfy the deliberate
indifference standard. By failing to identify any error in the magistrate
judge’s reasoning as to his deliberate indifference claims, Ramsey has
abandoned the claims on appeal. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25
(5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744,
748 (5th Cir. 1987).
Turning to the claim of retaliation against the warden and deputy
warden, Ramsey contends that summary judgment was improper because he
established that the defendants intended to retaliate against him for filing
grievances. In the district court, however, Ramsey claimed that he was
retaliated for a prior lawsuit against Management Training & Corporation
(MTC), which concerned an incident at another facility it operated in
Mississippi. We do not consider new facts or theories for relief raised for the
first time on appeal. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342
(5th Cir. 1999); Theriot v. Parish of Jefferson, 185 F.3d 477, 491 n.26 (5th Cir.
2
Case: 19-60820 Document: 00515645439 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/19/2020
No. 19-60820
1999). Moreover, Ramsey does not identify any error in the magistrate
judge’s reasons for rejecting his retaliation claim.
In his brief, Ramsey also argues that he should be allowed to proceed
on his equal protection claim because he was treated differently from
similarly situated persons. We do not consider this claim, which was not
presented in the district court. See Leverette, 183 F.3d at 342.
Finally, Ramsey argues that the magistrate judge abused his discretion
in denying Ramsey’s request for discovery concerning MTC’s “corporate
policy and/or custom of ‘code of silence.’” Because Ramsey relies on vague
assertions regarding the need for additional discovery, he has failed to show
that the magistrate judge abused his discretion in denying the discovery
motion. See Int’l Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally’s, Inc., 939 F.2d 1257, 1267 (5th Cir.
1991).
This appeal lacks arguable merit and is, therefore, frivolous. See
Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. Ramsey’s motion to proceed IFP is DENIED,
and we DISMISS his appeal as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24;
5th Cir. R. 42.2. Ramsey’s motion for the appointment of counsel is also
DENIED as this case does not present exceptional circumstances
warranting the appointment of counsel. See Cooper v. Sheriff, Lubbock Cty.,
Tex., 929 F.2d 1078, 1084 (5th Cir. 1991). Additionally, his petition for
discretion, which relies upon appellate rules that either do not afford him the
relief requested or are inapposite to the appeal at hand, is DENIED.
The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a strike under
§ 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996),
abrogated in part on other grounds by Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 1759, 1762-
63 (2015). Ramsey is WARNED that if he accumulates two additional
strikes, he may not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal while he is
3
Case: 19-60820 Document: 00515645439 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/19/2020
No. 19-60820
incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is in imminent danger of
serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).
4