Jose Briones v. Velparita Ivory

Fifth Circuit

Jose Briones v. Velparita Ivory

568 F. App'x 327

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMay 19, 2014

Docket13-11030

StatusUnpublished

This text of 568 F. App'x 327 (Jose Briones v. Velparita Ivory) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jose Briones v. Velparita Ivory, 568 F. App'x 327 (5th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Proceeding in forma pauperis, Jose Luis Briones, federal prisoner # 39169-179, filed the instant civil rights suit under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), to seek redress after one of the defendants insulted and threatened him while the other witnessed this behavior but did nothing to stop it. The district court dismissed the suit as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(b)(l). We review this dismissal de novo. See Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373 (5th Cir.2005). Our review of the record and pertinent authority shows no error in connection with the challenged judgment.

One who wishes to proceed under Bivens must show that a federal official infringed his constitutional rights. See Izen v. Catalina, 398 F.3d 363, 367 (5th Cir.2005). Threats and verbal abuse, such as those alleged by Briones, are not constitutionally actionable. See Bender v. Brumley, 1 F.3d 271, 274 n. 4 (5th Cir.1993); McFadden v. Lucas, 713 F.2d 143, 146 (5th Cir.1983). Similarly, Briones failed to raise a viable retaliation claim because the acts of which he complains are, as the district court concluded, de minimis. See Bibbs v. Early, 541 F.3d 267, 270-72 (5th Cir.2008); Morris v. Powell, 449 F.3d 682, 684-86 (5th Cir.2006). Finally, to the extent Briones complains of the processing of *328 his grievance against another prison official not party to this suit, these assertions do not raise a viable claim because he has no constitutional right to have his grievances resolved to his liking. See Geiger, 404 F.3d at 373-74. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

The district court’s dismissal of Briones’s civil complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim counts as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir.1996). Briones is CAUTIONED that if he accumulates three strikes he will not be able to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

Proceeding in forma pauperis, Jose Luis Briones, federal prisoner # 39169-179, filed the instant civil rights suit under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), to seek redress after one of the defendants insulted and threatened him while the other witnessed this behavior but did nothing to stop it. The district court dismissed the suit as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(b)(l). We review this dismissal de novo. See Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373 (5th Cir.2005). Our review of the record and pertinent authority shows no error in connection with the challenged judgment.

One who wishes to proceed under Bivens must show that a federal official infringed his constitutional rights. See Izen v. Catalina, 398 F.3d 363, 367 (5th Cir.2005). Threats and verbal abuse, such as those alleged by Briones, are not constitutionally actionable. See Bender v. Brumley, 1 F.3d 271, 274 n. 4 (5th Cir.1993); McFadden v. Lucas, 713 F.2d 143, 146 (5th Cir.1983). Similarly, Briones failed to raise a viable retaliation claim because the acts of which he complains are, as the district court concluded, de minimis. See Bibbs v. Early, 541 F.3d 267, 270-72 (5th Cir.2008); Morris v. Powell, 449 F.3d 682, 684-86 (5th Cir.2006). Finally, to the extent Briones complains of the processing of *328 his grievance against another prison official not party to this suit, these assertions do not raise a viable claim because he has no constitutional right to have his grievances resolved to his liking. See Geiger, 404 F.3d at 373-74. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

The district court’s dismissal of Briones’s civil complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim counts as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir.1996). Briones is CAUTIONED that if he accumulates three strikes he will not be able to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

568 F. App'x 327, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jose-briones-v-velparita-ivory-ca5-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack