Beall v. Talley ( 2021 )

Case: 20-50010 Document: 00515927662 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/07/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
July 7, 2021
No. 20-50010
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar
Clerk
David Beall,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Sheri J. Talley, Medical Doctor; Sabra B. Hill, Registered Nurse;
Keith W. Seidel, Nurse Practitioner; Claudia N. Alexander,
Licensed Vocational Nurse; Catarina M. Quiroz, Licensed Vocational
Nurse; Criselda B. Gochicoa, Registered Nurse,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 4:17-CV-33
Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
David Beall, former Texas prisoner # 1729786, appeals the district
court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action against various
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-50010 Document: 00515927662 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/07/2021
No. 20-50010
prison and medical officials. In his § 1983 suit, he asserted that the
defendants were liable for damages because they allowed him to be exposed
to tuberculosis at the Fort Stockton Unit and then failed to inform him of his
positive tuberculosis test results or provide him with the necessary medical
treatment while he was detained there.
With respect to the six defendants summarily dismissed pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) in the February 2017 order, Beall raises only a vague
one-sentence argument about unnamed prison officials failing “to institute
[a] system to prevent the spread of tuberculosis.” This is insufficient to brief
a challenge to the § 1915A(b)(1) dismissal of his claims against these six
defendants, and Beall has abandoned any such challenge he could have
raised. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993).
As respects the August 2018 order dismissing three defendants based
on Beall’s failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6), he fails to brief, and thereby abandons, any challenge to the district
court’s conclusion that his claims against two of the defendants were barred
on qualified immunity grounds. See Yohey, 985 F.2d at 224-25. Additionally,
Beall fails to show that the district court erred in dismissing his claims against
the third defendant for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs
based on its determination that Beall had failed to allege that the defendants
were aware of his tuberculosis test results. His new factual allegation that
these defendants knew that he had tuberculosis may not be considered for the
first time in this appeal. See Theriot v. Parish of Jefferson, 185 F.3d 477, 491
n.26 (5th Cir. 1999).
Finally, Beall fails to address, and thereby abandons, any challenge to
the district court’s December 2019 summary judgment dismissal of his
claims against three defendants based on his failure to exhaust his
administrative remedies, as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). See Yohey, 985
2
Case: 20-50010 Document: 00515927662 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/07/2021
No. 20-50010
F.2d at 224-25. In light of the foregoing, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
3