Wanzer v. Rayford, 22-50163

Jerry Wanzer, a Texas prisoner, filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint naming numerous prison officials and medical personnel.
The Fifth Circuit previously remanded a related matter after finding Wanzer’s allegations warranted a determination of imminent danger of serious physical injury.
On remand, the district court dismissed Wanzer’s complaint and denied his application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal, certifying the appeal was not taken in good faith.
Wanzer moved in the Fifth Circuit for leave to proceed IFP and challenged the district court’s certification.
The Fifth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo under the Twombly/Iqbal pleading standard and concluded Wanzer’s claims were time-barred or failed to state constitutional violations.
The court denied IFP, dismissed the appeal as frivolous, and assessed an additional strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), warning Wanzer about future sanctions for frivolous filings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
IFP / good-faith certification under § 1915	Wanzer seeks IFP on appeal, relying on prior appellate finding of imminent danger	District court certified appeal not in good faith because claims are frivolous and lack viability	Denied IFP; appeal dismissed as frivolous; certification upheld
Statute of limitations for claims against Sylvia Peterson and Dr. Brian Wong	Wanzer contends claims are timely	Facts underlying the claims were known >2 years before filing; appeals of post-judgment motions did not toll limitations under Texas law	Claims time-barred; dismissal affirmed
Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs (Debra Gloor, medical staff)	Wanzer alleges failure to investigate grievances and denial of needed treatment/surgery	Grievance processing does not create constitutional right; allegations are conclusory; disagreements with medical judgment are insufficient	Failed to state a deliberate-indifference claim; dismissed
Conditions (meals), access to courts, and retaliation (confiscation)	Meals lacked adequate nutrition; confiscation of legal materials impeded claims and was retaliatory	Meals did not deny minimal civilized necessities; confiscations resulted from policy violations; no nonfrivolous claim or non-speculative retaliatory motive shown	Claims insufficiently pleaded for Eighth Amendment, access-to-courts, or retaliation relief; dismissed

Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197 (5th Cir. 1997) (good-faith certification and when merits are intertwined with IFP determination)
DeMoss v. Crain, 636 F.3d 145 (5th Cir. 2011) (de novo review standard for §1915 dismissals paralleling Rule 12(b)(6))
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must state plausible claim to relief)
Coleman v. Lincoln Parish Det. Ctr., 858 F.3d 307 (5th Cir. 2017) (conclusory allegations insufficient for pro se plaintiffs)
Stringer v. Town of Jonesboro, 986 F.3d 502 (5th Cir. 2021) (accrual rule for § 1983 claims)
Holmes v. Texas A & M Univ., 145 F.3d 681 (5th Cir. 1998) (tolling principles for limitations periods)
Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371 (5th Cir. 2005) (no constitutional right to have grievances resolved satisfactorily)
Domino v. Texas Dep't of Crim. Just., 239 F.3d 752 (5th Cir. 2001) (disagreement with medical judgment not deliberate indifference)
Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996) (access-to-courts claim requires actual injury to nonfrivolous claim)
DeMarco v. Davis, 914 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 2019) (standards for access-to-courts and retaliation claims involving confiscated legal materials)
Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 1996) (dismissal as frivolous counts as a strike under § 1915(g))