Ronald Jacobs v. Wade Rigdon
703 F. App'x 348
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Ronald Jacobs, a Louisiana prisoner, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming excessive force and related claims against Lt. Wade Rigdon and Dr. McVea.
- District court dismissed the complaint as frivolous, for failure to state a claim, and as seeking relief against immune defendants. Jacobs appealed pro se and in forma pauperis.
- The central factual dispute involved Lt. Rigdon’s use of force when Jacobs attempted to free himself from Rigdon’s hold. Jacobs alleged excessive force and later alleged denial of medical treatment.
- Jacobs raised additional claims in district court (official-capacity damages, improper placement/maintenance in four-point restraints, state-law violations) but did not brief them on appeal. Those claims were treated as abandoned.
- Jacobs asserted a deliberate-indifference-to-medical-needs claim for the first time on appeal; the Fifth Circuit declined to consider it because it was not raised below.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal, finding Rigdon’s force was a good-faith effort to restore discipline under Hudson and warning Jacobs that the dismissal counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rigdon used excessive force | Jacobs: Rigdon used excessive, punitive force causing injury | Rigdon: force was reasonable to restore discipline when Jacobs resisted | Court: Force was applied in good-faith to restore discipline; no excessive force |
| Whether unbriefed district-court claims are preserved on appeal | Jacobs: raised several claims below (official-capacity damages; restraint decisions; policy violations; state-law claims) | Defendants: dismissal proper; appellate waiver applies | Court: Claims not briefed on appeal are abandoned |
| Whether new deliberate-indifference claim on appeal may be considered | Jacobs: defendants denied medical treatment after the incident | Defendants: claim was not raised below; should not be considered | Court: Claim not considered because it was not raised in district court |
| Whether dismissal counts as a strike under § 1915(g) | Jacobs: (no effective argument) | Defendants/Court: dismissal qualifies as a strike under precedent | Court: Dismissal counts as a strike; warned plaintiff about three-strike bar |
Key Cases Cited
- Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371 (5th Cir. 2005) (standard of review for dismissal of in forma pauperis prisoner suits)
- Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (1992) (excessive-force inquiry focuses on whether force was used in good-faith to maintain or restore discipline)
- Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744 (5th Cir. 1987) (issues not briefed on appeal are treated as abandoned)
- Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339 (5th Cir. 1999) (appellate courts generally do not consider issues not raised in district court)
- Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 1996) (dismissal of a prisoner’s claim can count as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g))