Adams v. Lumpkin

Case: 22-40362 Document: 00516666520 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/06/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________ FILED
March 6, 2023
No. 22-40362 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
____________
Mark Douglas Adams,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
Correctional Institutions Division,
Defendant—Appellee.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:21-CV-195
______________________________
Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Mark Douglas Adams, Texas prisoner # 1509320, appeals the district
court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted and the magistrate judge’s denial of several
postjudgment motions. Additionally, Adams has filed motions asking this
court to admit all motions, exhibits, amended complaints, and briefs; for the
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40362 Document: 00516666520 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/06/2023
No. 22-40362
appointment of counsel; for a preliminary injunction and a temporary
restraining order; and for leave to file documents supporting the motion for
injunctive relief.
As a threshold matter, we lack jurisdiction to consider any appeal from
the magistrate judge’s denial of Adams’s postjudgment motions. See
Donaldson v. Ducote, 373 F.3d 622, 624 (5th Cir. 2004). Concerning the
dismissal of his § 1983 action, Adams discusses only his claims alleging failure
to protect, deliberate indifference to his medical needs, and excessive use of
force. By his failure to brief, he has abandoned any challenge to the dismissal
of his other claims. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).
Following de novo review, we AFFIRM. See Geiger v. Jowers, 404
F.3d 371, 373 (5th Cir. 2005). “To establish a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff
must (1) allege a violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the
United States and (2) demonstrate that the alleged deprivation was
committed by a person acting under color of state law.” Pratt v. Harris Cnty.,
822 F.3d 174, 180 (5th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). We discern no error in the dismissal of Adams’s claims alleging
failure to protect, see Rogers v. Boatright, 709 F.3d 403, 407-08 (5th Cir. 2013);
deliberate indifference to Adams’s medical needs, see Farmer v. Brennan, 511
U.S. 825, 837 (1994); and excessive use of force, see Williams v. Banks, 956
F.3d 808, 812 & n.11 (5th Cir. 2020); Woods v. Edwards, 51 F.3d 577, 583 (5th
Cir. 1995).
As for Adams’s four appellate motions, he has not shown that
exceptional circumstances exist warranting the appointment of counsel on
appeal, see Cooper v. Sheriff, Lubbock Cnty., 929 F.2d 1078, 1084 (5th Cir.
1991), or that he is entitled to injunctive relief, see Byrum v. Landreth, 566
F.3d 442, 445 (5th Cir. 2009); Greene v. Fair, 314 F.2d 200, 202 (5th Cir.
1963). Accordingly, we DENY his motions for the appointment of counsel
2
Case: 22-40362 Document: 00516666520 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/06/2023
No. 22-40362
and for a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order. Adams’s
motion to admit all motions, exhibits, amended complaints, and briefs is
DENIED as unnecessary. His motion for leave to file documents
supporting the motion for injunctive relief is GRANTED. The referenced
documents were considered in addressing Adams’s motion for injunctive
relief. No further filings from Adams are permitted by this ruling. Finally,
Adams is reminded that he is BARRED from proceeding in forma pauperis
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 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g); Coleman v. Tollefson, 575 U.S. 532, 534 (2015).
3