Bakre v. Kendall

Case: 20-40660 Document: 00516286895 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/20/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 20, 2022
No. 20-40660 Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Ash B Bakre,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Deborah Kendall; James Bjornson; Doctor FNU Abron;
Michael Sizemore; DOE UTMB Office of Professional
Standards,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:19-CV-298
Before Smith, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Ash B. Bakre, Texas prisoner # 784509, seeks leave to proceed in
forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983complaint as frivolous. He contends that the defendants showed deliberate
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-40660 Document: 00516286895 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/20/2022
No. 20-40660
indifference to his serious medical needs and that the district court refused
or failed to consider all the medical evidence.
Bakre received extensive treatment but disagreed with particular
aspects of that treatment. Thus, the district court correctly concluded that
Bakre failed to meet the extremely difficult standard for showing deliberate
indifference to serious medical needs. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106
(1976); Brewster v. Dretke, 587 F.3d 764, 770 (5th Cir. 2009); Gobert v.
Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 345 (5th Cir. 2006). Bakre also fails to show that the
court abused its discretion by refusing to allow or to consider additional
medical evidence. See Moore v. Willis Indep. Sch. Dist., 233 F.3d 871, 876 (5th
Cir. 2000). Any challenge to the district court’s dismissal of Bakre’s claims
that the persons who responded to his grievances hindered and delayed his
medical care is waived on appeal due to lack of briefing. See Yohey v. Collins,
985 F.2d 222, 224–25 (5th Cir. 1993).
Because Bakre fails to present any nonfrivolous issue for appeal, his
IFP motion is DENIED, and 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.
Bakre’s motion to appoint counsel is also DENIED.
The district court’s dismissal of the action as frivolous and this court’s
dismissal of the appeal as frivolous count as strikes under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g). See Coleman v. Tollefson, 575 U.S. 532, 537 (2015). Bakre has two
prior strikes. Bakre v. Steven, No. 6:17-CV-239 (E.D. Tex. June 2, 2017);
Bakre v. Marr, No. 4:97-CV-210 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 1997).
Because Bakre now has at least 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). He is WARNED that any pending or future frivolous
or repetitive filings in this court or any court subject to this court’s
2
Case: 20-40660 Document: 00516286895 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/20/2022
No. 20-40660
jurisdiction may subject him to additional sanctions, and he is directed to
review all pending matters and move to dismiss any that are frivolous,
repetitive, or otherwise abusive.
3