Vetcher v. Img and Customs Enforcement ( 2021 )

Case: 19-10156 Document: 00515727945 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/01/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
February 1, 2021
No. 19-10156
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar
Clerk
Ivan Vetcher,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Supervisors;
Dusty Rowden, ICE Deportation Officer; FNU Ashley, Detention
Officer at Rolling Plains Regional Jail Detention Center;
Marcello Villegas, Warden, Rolling Plains Regional Jail Detention
Center; ICE Officers, LNU/FNU; Jeh C. Johnson, Secretary of
Department of Homeland Security; Philip T. Miller, Assistant Director
of Field Operations for Enforcement and Removal Operations; FNU
Hernandez, Detention Officer at Rolling Plains Regional Jail Detention
Center; FNU Ross, Detention Officer at Rolling Plains Regional Jail
Detention Center; ICE Agents, LNU/FNU, ICEA1; ICE Agents,
LNU/FNU, ICEA2; Rolling Plains Regional Jail &
Detention Center Staff; United States Department of
Homeland Security, Supervisors,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
No. 1:16-CV-164
Case: 19-10156 Document: 00515727945 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/01/2021
No. 19-10156
Before King, Smith, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Ivan Vetcher, former immigration detainee #AXXXXXXXX, filed a civil
action raising claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal
Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). He sought declaratory and injunc-
tive relief and compensatory and punitive damages. Vetcher alleged that he
was denied access to the courts; the defendants retaliated against him for the
exercise of his rights; he was denied his right to communication; he was
denied religious rights; he was subject to punitive treatment during his civil
detention; he was subject to cruel and unusual punishment; and some of the
defendants used excessive force against him. He asserted that the defendants
were liable to him in their individual and official capacities.
Except for the claims against Rowden and Villegas regarding alleged
retaliatory transfers, the district court dismissed all of Vetcher’s claims under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim for relief and certified
the partial judgment as final under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).
Vetcher filed a motion to amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 52(b) and a motion to amend the complaint under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 15. His motions were denied, and he appeals.
In Vetcher’s notice of appeal, he indicated the intent to appeal the
order denying his Rule 52 motion and his Rule 15 motion and also asserted
that the district court improperly dismissed his claims relating to the denial
of access to courts, which were addressed by the district court in its earlier
ruling. Thus, the issues raised in those motions, including the denial of
access to courts, are properly within the scope of the appeal. See Williams
v. Henagan, 595 F.3d 610, 616 (5th Cir. 2010).
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opin-
ion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances
set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
2
Case: 19-10156 Document: 00515727945 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/01/2021
No. 19-10156
In his appellate brief, Vetcher also challenges the dismissal of his
claims relating to punitive treatment in civil confinement, retaliation, and
cruel and unusual punishment. Those claims were dismissed by the district
court in its partial final judgment. Thus, in light of the liberal construction
given to Vetcher’s notice of appeal and brief, those issues are properly before
this court. See id. at 616−18.
Vetcher contends that the district court erred in denying his post-
judgment motion to amend. Because Vetcher had previously amended his
complaint at least once, and because a partial final judgment had issued, he
was not eligible to amend his complaint as a matter of course. See FED. R.
CIV. P. 15(a)(1). Vetcher’s post-judgment motion to amend the complaint
is treated as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). See
Rosenzweig v. Azurix Corp., 332 F.3d 854, 864 (5th Cir. 2003). We review the
denial of the Rule 59(e) motion for abuse of discretion in light of the limited
discretion in Rule 15(a). See id. Because Vetcher’s motion to amend con-
tained facts and arguments that he reasonably could have raised before dis-
missal, he has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in deny-
ing that motion. See Rosenzweig, 332 F.3d at 865; Vielma v. Eureka Co.,
218 F.3d 458, 468 (5th Cir. 2000).
The remaining claims on appeal challenge the dismissal of Vetcher’s
claims that he was denied access to courts; he was subjected to retaliation in
the form of a disciplinary action and a cancelled family visit; he was subjected
to punitive confinement in a civil environment; and he was subjected to cruel
and unusual punishment. We review the dismissal de novo and apply the same
standard of review to dismissals for failure to state a claim under
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) as for dismissals under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6). Black v. Warren, 134 F.3d 732, 734 (5th Cir. 1998).
Assuming that Bivens is applicable in the context of Vetcher’s claims
3
Case: 19-10156 Document: 00515727945 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/01/2021
No. 19-10156
regarding the denial of access to courts and retaliation, he failed to state a
claim for relief. See Petzold v. Rostollan, 946 F.3d 242, 252−54 (5th Cir. 2019).
Vetcher’s conclusory assertions that the law library was inadequate and that
he lacked the proper assistance do not show an actual injury necessary for a
claim of denial of access to courts. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351
(1996). Regarding his retaliation claim, he raises conclusory arguments that
he received a harsher punishment than normal for his disciplinary violation,
and he attempts to refute the district court’s finding that the family visit was
cancelled because his stepdaughter violated the rules of the detention facility
by stating that her rule violation was irrelevant. These arguments fail to show
error in the district court’s analysis. Vetcher makes no showing of retaliatory
intent. See Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 1166 (5th Cir. 1995).
The district court found that Vetcher’s claims of punitive confine-
ment were subject to dismissal because they involved private employees and
not federal actors and were therefore barred in a Bivens action under Minneci
v. Pollard, 565 U.S. 118, 125−30 (2012). The court further determined that
Vetcher had failed to demonstrate that the conditions were intended to be
punitive.
In his brief, Vetcher does not address the district court’s findings.
Instead, he merely reasserts that he was subject to these conditions. Accord-
ingly, he has waived any challenge to the district court’s determination. See
Brinkmann v. Dall. Cnty. Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
Vetcher’s appellate assertions of cruel and unusual punishment relate
to defendants who were not named in the district court. We will not consider
claims raised against new defendants on appeal. See Stewart Glass & Mirror,
Inc. v. U.S. Auto Glass Discount Ctrs., Inc., 200 F.3d 307, 316−17 (5th Cir.
2000) (“It is a bedrock principle of appellate review that claims raised for the
first time on appeal will not be considered.”). To the extent Vetcher is
4
Case: 19-10156 Document: 00515727945 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/01/2021
No. 19-10156
renewing a claim against a government entity, his claim is barred. See Moore
v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric. on Behalf of Farmers Home Admin., 55 F.3d 991, 995 (5th
Cir. 1995).
Vetcher does not challenge the severance and transfer of the claims
relating to his deportation in New York, claims against the defendants in their
official capacities, or claims against the defendants in their individual capa-
cities that the court found were barred under Bivens. He further fails to renew
any claims under the Administrative Procedure Act or his request for injunc-
tive and declaratory relief. Vetcher does not aver that he was subjected to a
polluted water supply, that he was denied his religious rights, or that he was
subjected to excessive force. Thus, those claims are abandoned. See Yohey
v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224−25 (5th Cir. 1983).
The judgment is AFFIRMED.
5