Hallman v. Waybourn ( 2023 )

Case: 22-10576 Document: 00516716171 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/18/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-10576
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ April 18, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
Robert F. Hallman, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Sheriff Bill Waybourn, Tarrant County Sheriff’s Department;
Maintenance Department; Officer FNU Gruudy, Jailer;
Tarrant County, Texas; Chief FNU Reyez, Tarrant County
Sheriff Department; Tarrant County Sheriff’s Department,
Grievance Division; Officer FNU Bernal, Jailer; Officer
FNU Jackson, Jailer; All Officers Who Authorized
Toilets to be Shut Off on 3/24/2022 to 3/26/2022,
Defendants—Appellees.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:22-CV-339
______________________________
Before Stewart, Dennis, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10576 Document: 00516716171 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/18/2023
No. 22-10576
Robert F. Hallman, while housed at the Tarrant County Jail, filed a 42
U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. On appeal, he challenges the district court’s
dismissal of his action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted. Following de novo review, see
Carlucci v. Chapa, 884 F.3d 534, 537 (5th Cir. 2018), we AFFIRM.
In his appellate brief, Hallman argues as follows: Sheriff Bill
Waybourn and Chief Reyes failed to supervise their subordinates, and there
is a pattern of institutional abuse at the jail; Officer Jackson used a racial slur,
antagonized him on one occasion by turning on his cell light and leaving it on,
and denied him due process after searching for a tablet in his cell; Officer
Bernal verbally harassed him with threats of a sexual nature; and the jail
grievance division did not follow the protocol set forth in the Texas
Administrative Code and failed to investigate his grievances properly.
Additionally, Hallman contends that the officers who authorized shutting off
the water to the toilets in his jail pod for three days violated his constitutional
rights and acted with deliberate indifference to his health and safety. By his
failure to brief, Hallman has abandoned any other claims. See Yohey v. Collins,
985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).
We discern no error in the dismissal of Hallman’s claims against
Sheriff Waybourn and Chief Reyes. See Goodman v. Harris Cnty., 571 F.3d
388, 395 (5th Cir. 2009). Likewise, we discern no error in the dismissal of
Hallman’s claims against Officers Jackson and Bernal. See 42 U.S.C.
§ 1997e(e); Hare v. City of Corinth, 74 F.3d 633, 636, 650 (5th Cir. 1996) (en
banc). As for Hallman’s claims against the grievance department, he has
abandoned any challenge to the district court’s ruling that the department is
not a legal entity that can be sued. See Yohey, 985 F.2d at 224-25. Finally,
the district court properly dismissed Hallman’s claims concerning the jail
toilets. See Hare, 74 F.3d at 636, 643; see also Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.
825, 847 (1994).
2
Case: 22-10576 Document: 00516716171 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/18/2023
No. 22-10576
Our affirmance of the district court’s dismissal of Hallman’s § 1983
complaint counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. §1915(g). See Adepegba v.
Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996), abrogated in part on other grounds
by Coleman v. Tollefson, 575 U.S. 532, 534-40 (2015). Hallman has previously
accumulated one strike. See Hallman v. Gordon, 4:17-CV-408-Y, 2019 WL
2995906, 6 (N.D. Tex. July 9, 2019) (unpublished), aff’d, 822 F. App’x 308,
309 (5th Cir. 2020); see also Adepegba, 103 F.3d at 387. Hallman is
WARNED that, if he accumulates three strikes, he will be 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.” § 1915(g).
3