Charles Riley v. Donna Kazmierczak, et al
UNPUBLISHED OPINION ORDER FILED. [12-40874 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: JES , Judge: ECP , Judge: SAH. Mandate pull date is 12/19/2012; denying motion to proceed IFP filed by Appellant Mr. Charles Eugene Riley, Jr. [7163046-2] [12-40874]
Date Filed: 11/28/2012
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
November 28, 2012
Lyle W. Cayce
CHARLES EUGENE RILEY,
DONNA KAZMIERCZAK; R. MORRIS; N. WEBB; UNKNOWN COOPER;
STEPHEN SIMS; LURENZA HUTCHISON,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:11-CV-607
Before SMITH, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Charles Eugene Riley, Texas prisoner # 552499, moves for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. He filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against
Major Donna Kazmierczak, Warden R. Morris, Assistant Warden N. Webb,
Major Cooper, Lieutenant Stephen Sims, and Officer Lurenza Hutchison,
alleging a failure to protect, deliberate indifference to serious medical needs,
excessive and wanton use of force, and violations of the Americans with
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
Date Filed: 11/28/2012
Disabilities Act (ADA). The magistrate judge (MJ) granted summary judgment
in favor of the defendants based on Riley’s failure to exhaust administrative
remedies. The MJ also determined that Riley’s appeal was not taken in good
By moving to proceed IFP, Riley is challenging 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). Our inquiry into an appellant’s good faith “is
limited to whether the appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits (and
therefore not frivolous).” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We may dismiss the appeal if
it is frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
We review the grant of summary judgment de novo. Cousin v. Small, 325
F.3d 627, 637 (5th Cir. 2003). Summary judgment is proper “if the movant
shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a).
nonmovant may not meet his burden of establishing the existence of a genuine
issue of material fact with conclusional allegations, unsubstantiated assertions,
or a scintilla of evidence. Hathaway v. Bazany, 507 F.3d 312, 319 (5th Cir.
To the extent that Riley challenges the merits of his underlying
constitutional claims and argues that the defendants are not immune from suit,
such arguments are not “directed solely to the trial court’s reasons for the
certification decision.” See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202. Riley was required under
42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) to exhaust his administrative remedies for all his claims,
including those raised under the ADA, since they involved matters of prison life.
See Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 739 (2001); Clifford v. Gibbs, 298 F.3d 328,
332 (5th Cir. 2002). Additionally, although Riley appears to assert that he was
not required to exhaust because the prison administrative system would not
provide him with adequate relief, exhaustion is mandatory “irrespective of the
Date Filed: 11/28/2012
forms of relief sought and offered through administrative avenues.” Booth, 532
U.S. at 741 n.6. Riley also appears to assert that he in fact exhausted his
administrative remedies as to at least some of his claims. Our review of Riley’s
appellate brief does not establish that the district court erred in concluding that
no genuine issue of material fact existed with respect to the exhaustion of
administrative remedies. See Hathaway, 507 F.3d at 319; Cousin, 325 F.3d at
Riley’s appeal lacks arguable merit and is therefore frivolous.
See Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. Accordingly, his motion for leave to proceed
IFP on appeal is denied, and his appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See Baugh,
117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Additionally, the dismissal of this appeal
as frivolous counts as one strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v.
Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996). Riley is cautioned that if he
accumulates three strikes, he will no longer be allowed to proceed in forma
pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is detained or incarcerated
in any facility unless he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. See
IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?