No. 99-10345
-1-
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-10345
Summary Calendar
SUE MONROE, also known as
Carolyn Demonbruen Hayes,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; BUREAU
OF PRISONS; KATHLEEN HAWK, Director
of Bureau of Prisons; J.D. BOGAN,
Warden Carswell Medical Center,
Respondents-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:98-CV-308-Y
--------------------
April 28, 2000
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Sue Monroe, a federal prisoner (# 02518-424), has filed an
application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on
appeal, following the district court’s grant of the defendants’
motion to dismiss her pro se action filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 and, according to the district court, Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388
(1971). By moving to proceed IFP, Monroe is challenging the
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 99-10345
-2-
district court’s certification that IFP status should not be
granted on appeal because her appeal is not taken in good faith.
See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997); 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(3).
To the extent that Monroe sought injunctive relief for
Bivens-type civil rights claims,** the district court concluded
that Monroe had failed to exhaust administrative remedies with
respect to her conditions-of-confinement claims and as to her
primary claim, which is that prison officials have denied her
adequate medical treatment with respect to the lupus and kidney
disease from which she suffers. She has also sought
“Compassionate Release” pursuant to Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”)
Program Statement 5050.44 and 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), but
was turned down by the BOP. Monroe’s IFP application is not
“directed solely to the trial court’s reasons for the
certification decision.” See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 203. She has
abandoned most of her conditions-of-confinement claims by failing
to brief them in her application. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d
222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). She has not remotely shown that the
district court erred in concluding that she had not exhausted
administrative remedies as to the her medical-care claims and
that the BOP did not abuse its discretion in denying
“Compassionate Release.”
**
The district court’s characterization of Monroe’s claims
as a Bivens action is questionable. Monroe did not request
damages, and Bivens is a Supreme Court-created cause of action
for damages against a federal actor for a violation of
constitutional rights. Bivens, 403 U.S. at 289.
No. 99-10345
-3-
Monroe’s appeal is without arguable merit and is thus
frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH
CIR. R. 42.2. Accordingly, we uphold the district court’s order
certifying that the appeal is not taken in good faith and denying
Monroe IFP status on appeal, we deny the motion for leave to
appeal IFP, and we DISMISS Monroe’s appeal as frivolous.
The Government’s motion to dismiss Monroe’s appeal is DENIED
as unnecessary.
Monroe’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.
Monroe’s motion for a temporary restraining order or other
injunctive relief is DENIED.