Giray Biyiklioglu v. St. Tammany Parish Jail, et a
708 F. App'x 200
5th Cir.2018Background
- Plaintiff Giray C. Biyiklioglu, a federal detainee, sued under § 1983 and Bivens after being attacked by his cellmate at St. Tammany Parish Jail while held under an intergovernmental agreement with the U.S. Marshals Service.
- He alleged defendants (state jail officials and federal marshals) knew or should have known of the cellmate's dangerousness and failed to protect him.
- The district court dismissed claims against state defendants for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and dismissed/found for Marshal May for failure to state a claim; an unnamed deputy marshal’s claims were also dismissed on procedural grounds.
- Biyiklioglu appealed and moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP); the district court had found the appeal not taken in good faith.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed the merits intertwined with the IFP determination and concluded the appeal was frivolous and without arguable merit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appeal is in good faith for IFP purposes | Biyiklioglu contends district court erred and appeal has merit | Defendants argue the appeal lacks arguable legal merit | Denied IFP; appeal frivolous and dismissed |
| Whether state defendants were entitled to summary judgment for failure to exhaust | Biyiklioglu argues he exhausted administrative remedies | State defendants argued exhaustion failure; submitted competent evidence refuting exhaustion | District court properly granted summary judgment for failure to exhaust; plaintiff did not rebut with competent evidence |
| Whether district court failed to consider amended allegations against Marshal May | Biyiklioglu asserts his amended allegations were not considered | Magistrate judge and district court contended they considered and found allegations conclusory and insufficient | Court held amended allegations were considered and were conclusory; dismissal for failure to state a claim proper |
| Whether claims against unnamed deputy marshal were barred by PLRA exhaustion | Biyiklioglu argued exhaustion may not bar that claim | Defendants contended PLRA exhaustion requirement applies and plaintiff raised no nonfrivolous challenge | Court declined to decide exhaustion issue as plaintiff failed to show a nonfrivolous claim against deputy marshal |
Key Cases Cited
- Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197 (5th Cir. 1997) (standard for IFP appeal good-faith review)
- Jones v. Lowndes County, Miss., 678 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 2012) (plaintiff must support exhaustion assertions with evidence)
- Cowart v. Erwin, 837 F.3d 444 (5th Cir. 2016) (competent summary-judgment evidence can refute exhaustion claims)
- Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215 (5th Cir. 1983) (appeal frivolous if it lacks legal points arguable on the merits)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must raise right to relief above speculative level)
- United States ex rel. Willard v. Humana Health Plan of Tex. Inc., 336 F.3d 375 (5th Cir. 2003) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 1759 (2015) (frivolous dismissal counts as a strike under § 1915(g))