Edwards v. Rheems

Case: 23-30109 Document: 00516775443 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/05/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________ FILED
June 5, 2023
No. 23-30109 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
____________
Antoine Edwards,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Luke Rheems, Colonel; Nettle, Warden; Simon, Colonel; Reed,
Captain; Tim Hooper, Warden; Calvart, Major; Department
of Public Safety and Correction of Louisiana State
Penitentiary,
Defendants—Appellees.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 3:22-CV-290
______________________________
Before King, Jones, and Smith, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Antoine Edwards, Louisiana prisoner # 748056, seeks leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The district court concluded that Edwards’s
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-30109 Document: 00516775443 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/05/2023
No. 23-30109
challenge to a disciplinary conviction based on a false report from a prison
officer was frivolous and failed to state a claim upon which relief could be
granted. In addition, the court dismissed without prejudice Edward’s
additional federal claims, which included challenges to the validity of his
conviction and to various unrelated incidents occurring in the prison, after
concluding that they were improperly joined in a single action. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 18, 20(a)(2). The court declined to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over any state law claims. By moving in this court to proceed
IFP, Edwards is challenging the district court’s certification that any appeal
would not be taken in good faith because he had not shown that he will
present a nonfrivolous appellate issue. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 220
(5th Cir. 1997).
Before this court, Edwards chiefly argues the merits of the various
claims dismissed by the district court on grounds of misjoinder. He does,
however, contend that he is being deprived of his right to petition the court
for grievances, presumably based on the order stating that he could raise his
additional claims in separate causes of action. He has not established that he
is entitled to present all of his challenges to his prison conditions and all
disciplinary actions in a single civil rights action. See Patton v. Jefferson Corr.
Ctr., 136 F.3d 458, 464 (5th Cir. 1998). He also contends that with respect
to the claim the district court did address on the merits, the court was
wrongly acting as a lawyer for the defendants by treating the officer who
purportedly filed a false disciplinary report against him as a defendant,
although Edwards did not identify him as such. To the extent that this is a
challenge to the district court’s decision to address one claim on the merits
if Edwards did not comply with the order to amend his complaint, Edwards
did raise a challenge to the disciplinary proceeding implicating that officer,
and the district court properly considered it as a separate transaction or
occurrence. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)(A).
2
Case: 23-30109 Document: 00516775443 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/05/2023
No. 23-30109
In addition, Edwards appears to be alleging that the dismissal of his
action constituted a denial of due process. To the extent that this contention
is raised for the first time on appeal, we decline to address the claim. See
Hannah v. United States, 523 F.3d 597, 600 n.1 (5th Cir. 2008). Even if
Edwards did raise a due process argument in the district court, his
conclusional assertions are insufficient to present a claim for relief. See Grant
v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995); Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy
Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
As for the challenge to the disciplinary conviction, Edwards does not
challenge the bases relied upon by the district court for dismissal, so any such
argument is abandoned. See Brinkmann, 813 F.2d at 748. To the extent that
Edwards’s assertion that the district court wrongly treated the officer filing
the disciplinary report as a defendant constitutes a challenge to the district
court’s ruling on this issue, he has not explained how this decision affected
his rights.
The appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. See Howard
v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, Edwards’s motion
to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See
5th Cir. R. 42.2. The dismissal as frivolous of this appeal counts as a strike
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th
Cir. 1996), abrogated in part on other grounds by Coleman v. Tollefson, 575 U.S.
532, 537 (2015). Edwards is WARNED that if he accumulates three strikes,
he will no longer be allowed to proceed 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).
3