Williams v. Thomas

Fifth Circuit

Williams v. Thomas

169 F. App'x 285

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 23, 2006

Docket04-31248

StatusUnpublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 169 F. App'x 285 (Williams v. Thomas) 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

Williams v. Thomas, 169 F. App'x 285 (5th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Deangelo Williams, Louisiana prisoner # 416929, appeals from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit, in which he alleged that he received constitutionally inadequate medical care. He argues that the district court erroneously dismissed his claims against Dr. Jerry Thomas and Warden Kathleen McGinnis in their official capacities without prejudice pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and, additionally, that the district court erroneously dismissed his *286 monetary damages and injunctive claims against them in their individual capacities as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

Given that Dr. Thomas and Warden McGinnis are agents of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Williams’s monetary damages claim against them in their official capacities was properly dismissed under the Eleventh Amendment. Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 26, 112 S.Ct. 358, 116 L.Ed.2d 301 (1991); Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989).

Williams’s complaint and his Spears ** hearing testimony both evidence that his Eighth Amendment claim was based solely on a disagreement over the type and quality of medical treatment he has received. However, unsuccessful medical treatment, acts of negligence or medical malpractice, or a prisoner’s disagreement with prison officials regarding medical treatment are insufficient to establish an unconstitutional denial of medical care. Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir.1991); see Norton v. Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286, 292 (5th Cir.1997). Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Williams’s individual-capacity claims as frivolous. See Harper v. Showers, 174 F.3d 716, 718 (5th Cir.1999).

The district court’s 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) dismissal counts as a strike. See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir.1996). Williams is cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes, he will not be able to proceed in forma pauperis 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 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). ,

AFFIRMED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.

*

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.

**

Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985).

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

PER CURIAM: *

Deangelo Williams, Louisiana prisoner # 416929, appeals from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit, in which he alleged that he received constitutionally inadequate medical care. He argues that the district court erroneously dismissed his claims against Dr. Jerry Thomas and Warden Kathleen McGinnis in their official capacities without prejudice pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and, additionally, that the district court erroneously dismissed his *286 monetary damages and injunctive claims against them in their individual capacities as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

Given that Dr. Thomas and Warden McGinnis are agents of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Williams’s monetary damages claim against them in their official capacities was properly dismissed under the Eleventh Amendment. Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 26, 112 S.Ct. 358, 116 L.Ed.2d 301 (1991); Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989).

Williams’s complaint and his Spears ** hearing testimony both evidence that his Eighth Amendment claim was based solely on a disagreement over the type and quality of medical treatment he has received. However, unsuccessful medical treatment, acts of negligence or medical malpractice, or a prisoner’s disagreement with prison officials regarding medical treatment are insufficient to establish an unconstitutional denial of medical care. Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir.1991); see Norton v. Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286, 292 (5th Cir.1997). Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Williams’s individual-capacity claims as frivolous. See Harper v. Showers, 174 F.3d 716, 718 (5th Cir.1999).

The district court’s 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) dismissal counts as a strike. See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir.1996). Williams is cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes, he will not be able to proceed in forma pauperis 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 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). ,

AFFIRMED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.

*

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.

**

Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 F. App'x 285, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-thomas-ca5-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack