Kevin Stafford v. Eddie Lange
685 F. App'x 300
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Kevin L. Stafford, a Texas prisoner, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging negligent medical treatment by Dr. Glen Smith for an infected foot and supervisory liability by Sheriff Eddie Lange and administrator Nancy Botkin.
- The district court dismissed the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, concluding the allegations did not show denial of care or deliberate indifference and did not support supervisory liability against Lange or Botkin.
- Stafford appealed and sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP); the district court certified the appeal was not taken in good faith and denied IFP.
- Stafford’s appellate IFP motion challenged only the district court’s certification that his appeal was not in good faith; he did not identify errors in the district court’s substantive dismissal.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed whether the appeal raised legal points arguable on their merits (good-faith standard) and whether the appeal was frivolous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal is taken in good faith for IFP purposes | Stafford sought IFP on appeal, implicitly contending the appeal is not frivolous | Defendants (via district court certification) contended the appeal lacked arguable legal merit | Denied: appeal lacks arguable merit and is frivolous; IFP denied and appeal dismissed |
| Whether the district court erred in dismissing § 1983 claim for medical deliberate indifference | Stafford alleged negligent medical care and supervisory liability | District court found allegations showed negligence at best, not deliberate indifference, and insufficient facts for supervisor liability | Treated as abandoned on appeal because Stafford did not challenge the district court’s reasoning; dismissal stands |
| Whether supervisory defendants can be held liable based on Stafford’s allegations | Stafford claimed Lange and Botkin responsible for employees’ negligent acts | Defendants argued plaintiff failed to plead facts showing their personal involvement or deliberate indifference | Court accepted district court’s conclusion and found no challenge on appeal; issue abandoned |
| Whether pro se status alters the requirement to identify errors on appeal | Stafford pro se; pro se briefs receive liberal construction | Defendants relied on precedents requiring appellants to identify errors despite pro se status | Court held pro se status does not excuse failure to identify errors; unchallenged issues are abandoned |
Key Cases Cited
- Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197 (5th Cir. 1997) (IFP appeal good-faith certification and dismissal of frivolous appeals)
- Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215 (5th Cir. 1983) (good-faith inquiry limited to whether appeal presents legal points arguable on their merits)
- Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222 (5th Cir. 1993) (pro se briefs are afforded liberal construction)
- Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744 (5th Cir. 1987) (failure to brief or identify errors equals abandonment of issues)