Woods v. Wiley ( 2023 )

Case: 22-30401 Document: 00516738840 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/04/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________ FILED
May 4, 2023
No. 22-30401 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
____________
Nicholas L. Woods,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
B. Wiley, Federal Officer, Federal Correctional Complex Oakdale, LA
(Low); S. Mata, Warden, Federal Correctional Complex Oakdale, LA
(Low); S I A Deville, S.I.A., Federal Correctional Complex Oakdale, LA
(Low),
Defendants—Appellees.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:22-CV-592
______________________________
Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Plaintiff-Appellant Nicholas L. Woods, a federal prisoner proceeding
pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals the dismissal of his complaint with
prejudice. We AFFIRM.
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30401 Document: 00516738840 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/04/2023
No. 22-30401
In his complaint, Woods alleges that Defendant-Appellee Officer B.
Wiley falsely stated on an incident report that Woods had spit on him. Woods
alleges that he had been wearing an N-95 mask during the encounter, making
Wiley’s version of the events impossible. Woods also claims that
Defendants-Appellees Warden S. Mata and Special Investigative Agent
Deville failed to properly investigate Wiley’s alleged misrepresentation once
Woods had brought it to their attention. The district court dismissed
Woods’s claims as frivolous under the in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), reasoning that they are not actionable under Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
We review claims dismissed as frivolous under the in forma pauperis
statute for an abuse of discretion, Butler v. Porter, 999 F.3d 287, 292 (5th Cir.
2021), construing a pro se litigant’s pleadings and arguments liberally, id.;
Johnson v. Quarterman, 479 F.3d 358, 359 (5th Cir. 2007). A complaint is
frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). “A complaint lacks an arguable basis in
law if it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, such as if the
complaint alleges the violation of a legal interest which clearly does not
exist.” Harper v. Showers, 174 F.3d 716, 718 (5th Cir. 1999) (quoting Davis v.
Scott, 157 F.3d 1003, 1005 (5th Cir. 1998)). “The Supreme Court has recently
reiterated that expanding the Bivens cause of action has ‘become “a
‘disfavored’ judicial activity.”’” Watkins v. Three Admin. Remedy
Coordinators of Bureau of Prisons, 998 F.3d 682, 685 (5th Cir. 2021) (quoting
Hernandez v. Mesa, 140 S. Ct. 735, 742 (2020)). Here, Woods does not
identify an implied cause of action that has already been recognized under
Bivens’s jurisprudence that is akin to his own. And he provides no persuasive
reason to extend Bivens’s reach in this context. See Hernandez, 140 S. Ct. at
744. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing
Woods’s complaint as frivolous.
2
Case: 22-30401 Document: 00516738840 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/04/2023
No. 22-30401
Woods also challenges the dismissal of his complaint with prejudice,
arguing that he should have been afforded leave to amend. Although the
district court explicitly dismissed Woods’s complaint with prejudice, Woods
never moved for the relief he requests now below. “[T]he Prison Litigation
Reform Act requires a district court sua sponte to dismiss a prisoner’s IFP
civil rights complaint if the court determines that the action is frivolous or
fails to state a claim.” Alexander v. Stiles, 54 F. App’x 412 (5th Cir. 2002)
(per curiam); see Rogers v. Flores, 273 F.3d 1100 (5th Cir. 2001) (unpublished
per curiam) (“[Appellant’s] argument that the district court abused its
discretion in refusing to allow him to amend his complaint is factually
frivolous. He did amend his complaint once, and he did not seek permission
to amend or present a second complaint after the magistrate judge had
recommended dismissal.”). Furthermore, Woods fails to explain how he
might overcome his complaint’s deficiencies, despite contending that he
would rectify the legal issues that were the basis for the dismissal below
through “more ‘artfully’ structuring the complaint were he allowed to
amend it.” Nor is it apparent to us that such corrective pleading is possible.
AFFIRMED.
3