Thompson v. Linthicum ( 2023 )

Case: 23-20257 Document: 00516924282 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/09/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________ United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 23-20257
FILED
October 9, 2023
____________
Lyle W. Cayce
Lawrence Edward Thompson, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Doctor Lanette Linthicum,
Defendant—Appellee.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:23-CV-192
______________________________
Before Haynes, Willett, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Lawrence Edward Thompson, Texas prisoner #408167, seeks leave to
appeal in forma pauperis (IFP) from (1) the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983complaint as barred under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and (2) the denials of his
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motions challenging that dismissal.
Thompson does not address, and has therefore abandoned any challenge to,
the finding that he is barred from proceeding under § 1915(g). See Yohey v.
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-20257 Document: 00516924282 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/09/2023
No. 23-20257
Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993) (holding that pro se appellant must
brief arguments to preserve them); Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff
Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987) (observing that failure to identify any
error in district court’s analysis is same as if appellant had not appealed).
Instead, Thompson asserts that he is in imminent danger of serious physical
injury because he has not received adequate medical treatment for a bacterial
infection.
We do not consider Thompson’s contentions, made for the first time
on appeal, regarding interactions that he allegedly had with medical
personnel from July to August 2023. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183
F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir.1999). Thompson’s allegations regarding the bacterial
infection merely constitute disagreements with his medical treatment and do
not allege an imminent danger of serious physical injury. See Baños v. O’Guin,
144 F.3d 883, 885 (5th Cir. 1998).
Thompson has not shown that he is entitled to proceed IFP on appeal
or that he raises a nonfrivolous issue regarding the dismissal of his complaint
pursuant to the three-strikes bar of § 1915(g). See § 1915(g); Baños, 144 F.3d
at 885. The IFP motion is DENIED, and, because the facts surrounding the
IFP decision are inextricably intertwined with the merits of the appeal, 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.
We previously warned Thompson about the three-strikes bar of
§ 1915(g) and cautioned him that he could be subject to additional sanctions
if he filed future frivolous or repetitive filings. See Thompson v. Allred Unit,
No. 23-10041, 2023 WL 3617847, 1 (5th Cir. May 24, 2023); Thompson v.
Allred Unit, No. 22-10641, 2022 WL 14461808, 1 (5th Cir. Oct. 25, 2022),
cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 2646 (2023). Because Thompson has not heeded those
warnings, he is ORDERED to pay a sanction of $100 to the clerk of court,
2
Case: 23-20257 Document: 00516924282 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/09/2023
No. 23-20257
and he is barred from filing any pleading in this court or any court subject to
this court’s jurisdiction until the sanction is paid in full, unless he obtains
leave of the court in which he seeks to file such pleading. He is again
reminded that, because he has three strikes, he 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). Thompson is also again WARNED that the filing of repetitive or
frivolous pleadings in this court or any court subject to this court’s
jurisdiction could result in additional sanctions. He is directed to review all
pending matters and move to dismiss any that are frivolous, repetitive, or
otherwise abusive.
3