Rickey Gipson v. Tim Keith
678 F. App'x 264
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Rickey Wayne Gipson, a Louisiana prisoner, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and alleged related state-law claims arising from prison smoking/tobacco policies and actions by prison officials.
- District court entered a partial Rule 54(b) judgment dismissing federal claims in whole or in part against defendants Tim Keith, Jack Garner, Daniel Marr, and James LeBlanc, and denied Gipson’s motion for summary judgment.
- Gipson appealed; the Fifth Circuit first considered which district-court rulings were final under Rule 54(b) and therefore appealable.
- The court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of Gipson’s summary-judgment motion because that ruling did not dispose of any claims or parties.
- Gipson did not challenge the dismissal of Marr or the official-capacity monetary-damages claim against LeBlanc, so those issues were deemed abandoned.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed de novo dismissals under Rule 12(b)(6) for claims against Garner and LeBlanc (individual capacity); it affirmed dismissals based on failure to plead plausible § 1983 claims and failure to serve Keith under Rule 4(m).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appealable rulings under Rule 54(b) include denial of Gipson’s summary judgment | Gipson sought review of denial of summary judgment | District court’s Rule 54(b) judgment did not make the summary-judgment ruling final because it did not dispose of claims or parties | Dismissed in part for lack of jurisdiction; summary-judgment denial not reviewable on this appeal |
| Sufficiency of § 1983 allegations against LeBlanc and Garner (12(b)(6)) | Contract and commissary evidence (2000–03 CCA contract; 2015 commissary list) show unconstitutional conduct supporting § 1983 claims | Contract expired and is inapposite; commissary sales do not show lack of designated outside smoking areas or state action violating constitutional rights | Claims against LeBlanc (individual) and Garner dismissed for failure to state plausible § 1983 claims |
| Dismissal of Marr and official-capacity monetary claim against LeBlanc | Gipson did not brief these grounds | Defendants relied on district-court dismissals | Issues abandoned by Gipson; not reviewed |
| Dismissal of Keith for failure to serve under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) | Gipson argued Rule 4(m) dismissal is an affirmative defense waived if not in a motion to dismiss | Keith was never served, filed no answer or motion; Gipson knew of service problems and did nothing to cure them | Dismissal for failure to serve affirmed; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Eldredge v. Martin Marietta Corp., 207 F.3d 737 (5th Cir. 2000) (requirements for Rule 54(b) final judgment)
- Leal v. McHugh, 731 F.3d 405 (5th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744 (5th Cir. 1987) (issues not briefed are abandoned)
- Rochon v. Dawson, 828 F.2d 1107 (5th Cir. 1987) (prisoner’s responsibility to remedy service defects)