Prescott v. Johnson ( 2023 )

Case: 22-40255 Document: 00516768301 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/30/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________ FILED
May 30, 2023
No. 22-40255
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
____________
Anthony Prescott,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
K. Johnson, Kitchen Manager, Gurney Unit; Tony A. Dean, Officer,
Coffield Unit; Stuart Calhoun, Warden, Gurney Unit; Earnest
Navarrete, Assistant Warden, Coffield Unit; Cabrea, Sergeant,
Gurney Unit; Jane Doe; Donald Lee; Christal Meador;
Funai, formerly known as Funais; Michael Britt; Steven
Farris; Danny Jackson; Tony Dew; Lowrey R. Davis;
Dennis Nash; Author Thomas; Gaye Karriker, Law
Librarian, Coffield Unit,
Defendants—Appellees.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:18-CV-577
______________________________
Before Smith, Southwick, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40255 Document: 00516768301 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/30/2023
No. 22-40255
Texas inmate Anthony Prescott appeals the dismissal, at the screening
phase, of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil action against various employees of the
Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Prescott contends that the
defendants violated his rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and
Fourteenth Amendments, as well as the Americans with Disabilities Act
(“ADA”) and the Rehabilitation Act. Further, Prescott contends the
defendants conspired to violate his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and
1986. Most of Prescott’s claims stem from his allegation that the defendants
were either complicit in, or deliberately indifferent to, the contamination or
poisoning of his prison meals, which he asserts was in retaliation for his suing
them under Section 1983. Prescott seeks official-capacity damages against
the defendants, punitive damages in relation to his ADA claim, and injunctive
relief.
The district court dismissed Prescott’s claims as either frivolous or
for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A & 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The
court concluded that the Eleventh Amendment barred Prescott’s claim for
official-capacity damages and that punitive damages were not available under
Title II of the ADA. The district court also denied an injunction because
Prescott did not prevail on the merits of his claims.
Prescott fails to show error under our de novo standard of review for a
district court’s dismissal of a complaint as frivolous or for failure to state a
claim. See Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373 (5th Cir. 2005). He fails to
address or identify error in many of the court’s findings. Thus, it “is the
same as if he had not appealed that judgment.” Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty.
Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Prescott’s complaint
otherwise contains insufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a
plausible claim for relief or to draw a reasonable inference that the defendants
are liable for the alleged misconduct. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009). The district court properly dismissed the civil action.
2
Case: 22-40255 Document: 00516768301 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/30/2023
No. 22-40255
Lastly, because Prescott has apparently been released from Texas
state custody, his appeal of the denial of injunctive relief is moot. See Herman
v. Holiday, 238 F.3d 660, 665 (5th Cir. 2001).
AFFIRMED.
3