Winfred Campbell v. James LeBlanc
694 F. App'x 275
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Winfred Campbell, a Louisiana prisoner, appealed the dismissal of his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit alleging deliberate indifference to medical needs and mishandling of a September 2014 grievance.
- The district court dismissed the suit under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (6): official-capacity claims barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity; individual-capacity claims against Leblanc lacked foundation; individual-capacity claims against Lavespere barred by qualified immunity; declined supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.
- The district court denied Campbell leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal, certifying the appeal was not taken in good faith under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
- Campbell sought IFP in the Fifth Circuit, challenging the district court’s certification, but did not address the district court’s stated reasons (Eleventh Amendment, qualified immunity, supplemental jurisdiction).
- The Fifth Circuit found Campbell abandoned challenges to those determinations, failed to allege facts supporting deliberate indifference or to timely present October 2015 allegations, and thus held the appeal frivolous; IFP was denied and appeal dismissed.
- The district-court dismissal and this frivolous-appeal dismissal produced Campbell’s third strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), barring future IFP filings while incarcerated unless facing imminent danger.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the IFP certification (appeal not in good faith) was erroneous | Campbell contended he should proceed IFP on appeal | District court certified appeal not in good faith because claims lack arguable merit | Court: Campbell failed to rebut certification; IFP denied; appeal frivolous |
| Eleventh Amendment immunity for official-capacity damages claims | Campbell sought monetary relief against officials in their official capacities | Defendants: official-capacity claims barred by Eleventh Amendment | Court: District court correctly dismissed official-capacity monetary claims (Campbell abandoned challenge) |
| Individual-capacity claims and qualified/immunity and merits (deliberate indifference) | Campbell alleged denial of adequate medical care and grievance mishandling | Defendants: claims lack factual/legal foundation; qualified immunity applies | Court: Campbell’s conclusory allegations insufficient; he abandoned or failed to brief merits; claims lack arguable merit |
| Application of § 1915(g) strikes bar | Campbell sought to continue IFP litigation | Defendants relied on prior dismissals for failure to state a claim | Court: This dismissal plus prior dismissals give Campbell three strikes; § 1915(g) bar applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197 (5th Cir. 1997) (IFP challenge on appeal must target district court’s certification reasons)
- Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215 (5th Cir. 1983) (appeal taken in good faith if it raises legal points arguable on their merits)
- Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222 (5th Cir. 1993) (issues not addressed on appeal are abandoned; new factual allegations not raised below are not considered)
- Koch v. Puckett, 907 F.2d 524 (5th Cir. 1990) (conclusory assertions of inadequate medical care insufficient to establish deliberate indifference)
- Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 1996) (dismissals for failure to state a claim and frivolous appeals count as strikes under § 1915(g))