951 F.3d 236
5th Cir.2020Background
- On December 7, 2016 a large fight at the Ferguson Unit mess hall led to use of gas and removal of inmates; Alexander was placed in closed custody from Dec. 7–19.
- While in closed custody Alexander complained the cell was infested (roaches, dead roaches, rat droppings) and says officers logged his complaints on maintenance dockets.
- Captain Jennings held a disciplinary hearing on Dec. 19; Alexander was found to have participated in the riot and suffered penalties including 45 days cell restriction, loss of 350 days good-time credits, one-year closed custody, and demotion in classification; Assistant Warden Clark reclassified him to G5.
- Alexander also alleges Access-to-Courts violations (delayed legal materials/law library), mishandling of grievances, retaliation, and Eighth Amendment claims based on unsanitary conditions; he sought damages and injunctive/declaratory relief.
- The district court allowed IFP but dismissed the § 1983 complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); two earlier § 1983 suits of his had been dismissed as frivolous.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed: it rejected each of Alexander’s substantive claims, denied appointment of counsel on appeal, and held this dismissal constitutes a third "strike" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), issuing a sanction warning.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Access to courts | Jones refused legal materials > two weeks and law library access was inadequate, causing loss of case | Alexander failed to show actual injury or prejudice to the specific suit alleged | Affirmed dismissal; no actual injury shown; new appellate argument barred as raised first on appeal |
| Due process — disciplinary hearing | Counsel substitute ineffective/insufficient assistance at hearing | No protected liberty or property interest implicated by the disciplinary conviction | Affirmed dismissal; waived/insufficient challenge and no protected interest shown |
| Grievance process | Grievances were mishandled and denied without due process | Prisoners have no federal due-process right in grievance procedures | Affirmed dismissal; grievances not actionable under § 1983 |
| Reclassification to G5 | Reclassification by Clark was biased and violated due process | Custodial classification does not create a protected liberty interest; one-year lockdown not "atypical and significant" | Affirmed dismissal; no protected interest and conditions not atypical |
| Retaliation | Reclassification and discipline were retaliatory for his complaints and lawsuits | Allegations fail to show defendants knew of or were motivated by protected activity | Affirmed dismissal; plaintiff did not plausibly allege knowledge/motivation |
| Eighth Amendment — unsanitary cell | Cell infestation and droppings amount to cruel and unusual punishment; officials ignored reports | Conditions not objectively extreme; plaintiff failed to show defendants were deliberately indifferent (no proof they drew inference of serious risk) | Affirmed dismissal; conditions not shown to be constitutionally severe and no deliberate indifference alleged |
| Appointment of counsel / IFP status & § 1915(g) | Requested appointed appellate counsel; sought to proceed IFP | No exceptional circumstances warrant counsel; dismissal counts as a strike under PLRA three-strikes rule | Appointment denied; appeal affirmed; dismissal counts as third § 1915(g) strike and IFP bar imposed (absent imminent danger) |
Key Cases Cited
- Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371 (5th Cir. 2005) (standard of review and limits on grievance-based due-process claims)
- Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996) (actual-injury requirement for access-to-courts claims)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (bar on § 1983 claims that would imply invalidity of conviction/ sentence)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995) (liberty-interest analysis; "atypical and significant hardship")
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference standard for conditions claims)
- Harper v. Showers, 174 F.3d 716 (5th Cir. 1999) (no protectable interest in custodial classification)
- Woods v. Edwards, 51 F.3d 577 (5th Cir. 1995) (objective threshold for unsanitary-conditions Eighth Amendment claims)
- McDonald v. Steward, 132 F.3d 225 (5th Cir. 1998) (elements of retaliation claim)
- Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 1759 (2015) (PLRA "three strikes" analysis: dismissals count as strikes even if on appeal)
- Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 1996) (prior Fifth Circuit stance on counting strikes; discussed and effectively superseded by Coleman)