Cook v. TTUHSC Medical Personnel ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • Case: 21-10053      Document: 00516296140           Page: 1     Date Filed: 04/26/2022
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Fifth Circuit
    United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    April 26, 2022
    No. 21-10053                             Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    Reyce Cook,
    Plaintiff—Appellant,
    versus
    TTUHSC Medical Personnel; Ralph Rosiles; NFN NLN,
    Unknown Medical Personnel; Sergeant NFN Reyes; Lieutenant
    NFN Wilkerson; TDCJ Officials,
    Defendants—Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas
    USDC No. 5:20-CV-71
    Before Southwick, Graves, and Costa, Circuit Judges.
    Per Curiam:*
    Reyce Cook, Texas prisoner # 1804354, seeks leave to appeal in forma
    pauperis (IFP) from the dismissal of his civil action for failure to state a claim
    under 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     or the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). See
    *
    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    opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-10053        Document: 00516296140         Page: 2    Date Filed: 04/26/2022
    No. 21-10053
    
    28 U.S.C. §§ 1915
    , 1915A. He only contention is that defendants were
    deliberately indifferent to his medical needs on the day he suffered a heat-
    related illness.
    The magistrate judge who decided the case by consent of the parties,
    correctly ruled that Cook failed to meet the extremely difficult standard for
    showing deliberate indifference. See Brewster v. Dretke, 
    587 F.3d 764
    , 770
    (5th Cir. 2009); Gobert v. Caldwell, 
    463 F.3d 339
    , 345 (5th Cir. 2006). Cook
    has abandoned the ADA claim and any other potential issues by failing to
    brief them. See Yohey v. Collins, 
    985 F.2d 222
    , 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).
    Because Cook fails to present any nonfrivolous issue for appeal, his
    IFP motion is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See
    Baugh v. Taylor, 
    117 F.3d 197
    , 202 n.24 (5th Cir. 1997); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
    Cook’s motion to appoint counsel is also DENIED.
    The district court’s dismissal of the action for failure to state a claim
    and this court’s dismissal of the appeal as frivolous count as strikes under
    § 1915(g). See Coleman v. Tollefson, 
    575 U.S. 532
    , 537 (2015). Research
    reveals that Cook already had three strikes. Accordingly, Cook is BARRED
    from proceeding IFP 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 § 1915(g). Cook is WARNED that any pending or
    future frivolous or repetitive filings in this court or any court subject to this
    court’s jurisdiction may subject him to additional sanctions, including
    monetary sanctions and limits on his access to court.
    2