Mitchell Stevens v. Darrel Vannoy, Warden ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 17-30494      Document: 00514428381         Page: 1    Date Filed: 04/13/2018
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    No. 17-30494                          April 13, 2018
    Lyle W. Cayce
    MITCHELL STEVENS,                                                               Clerk
    Plaintiff-Appellant
    v.
    DARREL VANNOY, WARDEN, LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY;
    CHAD MANSINNI, Warden; TROY PORET, Warden; UNKNOWN DUPONT,
    Warden; ORVILLE LAMARTIANEER, Warden; UNKNOWN CRUZ, Colonel;
    UNKNOWN ROBINSON, Colonel; CHAD ORBRA, Lieutenant Colonel;
    SHELTON SCALES, Major; WILLIAM ROSSO, Captain; MAGAN SHIPLEY,
    Class. Officer; UNKNOWN FAIRCHILD, Class. Officer; UNKNOWN
    BOUDROUX, Sec. Officer Staff Sergent; UNKNOWN PIGEON, Lieutenant;
    SHERWOOD PORET, Registered Nurse; MELANIE BARTON, Registered
    Nurse; JAMES LABLANC, Sec.; ALL WHO ADMINISTER SHOTS SINCE
    2002; AMY ZAUNBRACHER, Registered Nurse,
    Defendants-Appellees
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of Louisiana
    USDC No. 3:14-CV-204
    Before DENNIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM: *
    * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
    CIR. R. 47.5.4.
    Case: 17-30494     Document: 00514428381      Page: 2    Date Filed: 04/13/2018
    No. 17-30494
    Mitchell Stevens, Louisiana prisoner # 78189, has filed a motion for leave
    to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in an appeal from the district court’s
    dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous and for failure to state
    a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C §§ 1915(e) and 1915A. His IFP motion is a
    challenge to the district court’s certification that his appeal is not taken in good
    faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 
    117 F.3d 197
    , 202 (5th Cir. 1997).
    In his complaint, Stevens challenged the prison’s policy of annually
    performing a test for tuberculosis (TB test) on all inmates. He complained that
    because he refused to be tested, he was subject to harassment, threats of
    physical force, and unwarranted disciplinary action, and he contended that he
    was ultimately tested against his will in violation of the First Amendment, the
    Double Jeopardy Clause, and the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel
    and unusual punishment.
    The gist of Stevens’s argument is that the district court erred in
    dismissing his claims prior to the defendants’ raising defenses that were relied
    upon by the district court in dismissing the complaint as frivolous or for failure
    to state a claim. A review of his complaint reflects that the district court did
    not err in dismissing claims against the defendants in their official capacity for
    monetary damages. See Boyd v. Biggers, 
    31 F.3d 279
    , 284 (5th Cir. 1994); see
    also Kentucky v. Graham, 
    473 U.S. 159
    , 169 (1985). Further, the district court
    could determine, based on a review of the complaint, that the defendants’
    action of compelling Stevens to undergo TB testing was in accord with a
    legitimate penological interest and, thus, was not unconstitutional.            See
    McCormick v. Stalder, 
    105 F.3d 1059
    , 1060-62 (5th Cir. 1997).
    Stevens has not shown that he will present a nonfrivolous issue on
    appeal. See Howard v. King, 
    707 F.2d 215
    , 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly,
    2
    Case: 17-30494     Document: 00514428381     Page: 3   Date Filed: 04/13/2018
    No. 17-30494
    we deny his motion for leave to proceed IFP and dismiss the appeal as frivolous.
    See 
    Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202
    n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
    This dismissal and the district court’s dismissal of the complaint each
    count as a strike under § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 
    103 F.3d 383
    ,
    388 (5th Cir. 1996). This court imposed another strike in Stevens v. Cain, No.
    13-30288 (5th Cir. Oct. 8, 2013). Because he has accumulated at least three
    strikes under § 1915(g), Stevens 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).
    MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IFP DENIED; APPEAL
    DISMISSED; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) BAR IMPOSED.
    3