Watkins v. Carter

Case: 22-40477 Document: 00516807795 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/03/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________ United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 22-40477 July 3, 2023
Summary Calendar
____________ Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Eric Watkins,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Timothy Carter, also known as UP Carter; Dony Cartrette,
also known as UP Coltran; Jody Upton, Individually and in His
Official Capacity as Warden; Paul Hayes,
Defendants—Appellees.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:11-CV-505
______________________________
Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Eric Watkins, former federal prisoner # 55630-004, sued various
federal prison officials pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of
Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), raising claims of excessive
force and retaliation. Watkins appeals the dismissal of that suit under 28
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40477 Document: 00516807795 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/03/2023
No. 22-40477
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted. He argues that the district court incorrectly declined to extend
the Bivens remedy to his claims of excessive force and retaliation.
We review de novo dismissals of a claim pursuant to
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), using the same standard applied to dismissals pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Black v. Warren, 134 F.3d 732,
733-34 (5th Cir. 1998). A suit “will survive dismissal for failure to state a
claim if it contains sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face.” Legate v. Livingston, 822 F.3d 207, 210
(5th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Watkins has not stated a plausible claim that Bivens should be
extended to the new contexts of excessive force and retaliation. See Egbert v.
Boule, 142 S. Ct. 1793, 1807-08 (2022); Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120, 130-31,
135 (2017); Butler v. Porter, 999 F.3d 287, 293 (5th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142
S. Ct. 766 (2022). Therefore, the district court did not err in dismissing his
suit for failure to state a claim. See Legate, 822 F.3d at 210; Black, 134 F.3d at
733-34.
AFFIRMED.
2