IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-21095
Summary Calendar
BILLY D. JACOBS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
WAYNE SCOTT, Director, Texas Department
of Criminal Justice; GARY JOHNSON, Warden,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-99-CV-2720
--------------------
May 22, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Billy D. Jacobs, Texas prisoner #631401, appeals the
dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii). Jacobs argues that the district
court dismissed his claims without considering his pro se status
and that the district court erred in dismissing his claims as
frivolous and for failure to state a claim.
Jacobs also argues that the district court’s dismissal
applied erroneous legal conclusions; that the district court’s
reasons for dismissal failed to provide this Court with an
adequate basis for “intelligent appellate review”; that 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-21095
-2-
district court erred in failing to indicate whether the dismissal
was with or without prejudice; and that the district court erred
in denying his request for a transcript at Government expense.
Because these issues are not adequately argued, they are deemed
abandoned. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9) (2001); Yohey v.
Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v.
Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Jacobs further argued
before the district court that prison officials had improperly
removed property from his cell. As he fails to brief this issue
on appeal, it is also deemed waived. See Yohey, 985 F.2d at 224-
25.
This Court will not address Jacobs’s argument that the
defendants are retaliating against him for filing prison
grievances and for previous litigation filed against them. This
claim is raised for the first time on appeal and was not
factually developed before the district court. See Theriot v.
Parish of Jefferson, 185 F.3d 477, 491 n.26 (5th Cir. 1999);
Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir.
1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1138 (2000).
The district court did not fail to consider Jacobs’s pro se
status. See Eason v. Thaler, 14 F.3d 8, 9 (5th Cir. 1994).
The record shows that Jacobs’s hypertension medication was
discontinued because it caused Jacobs to have an allergic
reaction, and Jacobs has failed to show deliberate indifference
to his other medical ailments. See Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d
320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991). Moreover, there is no evidence that
defendants were personally involved in these alleged
constitutional violations or that there was a causal connection
No. 00-21095
-3-
between their conduct and the alleged denial of medical
treatment. See Thompkins v. Belt, 828 F.2d 298, 303-04 (5th Cir.
1987).
There was no evidence that defendants knew Jacobs was being
exposed to chemicals used on other prisoners in administrative
segregation. See id. at 304. As Jacobs does not contend that
the defendants are responsible for the allegedly unconstitutional
policy allowing the use of these chemicals, this argument has
been abandoned on appeal. See Yohey, 985 F.2d at 224-25. With
respect to Jacobs’s claim that he was not medically treated for
his exposure to these chemicals, he failed to show that any
prison official knew that he faced a substantial risk of harm
from this exposure and then disregarded that risk by failing to
take reasonable measures to abate it. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511
U.S. 825, 847 (1994).
Jacobs’s appeal is without arguable merit and is therefore
frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.
1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See
5th Cir. R. 42.2. The district court’s dismissal of this case
and this court’s dismissal of his appeal as frivolous count as
two strikes for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). In Jacobs v.
Scott, No. 00-20589 (5th Cir. Feb. 13, 2001) (unpublished),
issued after Jacobs’s notice of appeal in this case, this Court
informed Jacobs that he had three strikes for purposes of 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g) and that he was barred from proceeding in forma
pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is
incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is in imminent
No. 00-21095
-4-
danger of serious physical injury. This bar is still in effect.
APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.
Jacobs v. Scott
Combined Opinion