IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-21252
Summary Calendar
WILLIAM F. BEASLEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JACK MANGRUM; KENNETH REAGANS; GARY GOMEZ;
R. VILLARAZA; THOMAS J. MEDART,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-00-CV-1649
- - - - - - - - - -
July 26, 2002
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
William F. Beasley, a Texas prisoner (# 635951), appeals the
magistrate judge’s 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) dismissal as frivolous
of his pro se civil rights action, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. The dismissal pursuant to the “in forma pauperis”
(“IFP”) statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), was improper because
that statute does not apply to prisoners, like Beasley, who are
not proceeding IFP. See Bazrowx v. Scott, 136 F.3d 1053, 1054
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-21252
-2-
(5th Cir. 1998). The question before this court is whether such
dismissal would have been alternatively authorized under
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), which applies regardless whether the
plaintiff has paid a filing fee. See Ruiz v. United States,
160 F.3d 273, 274 (5th Cir. 1998). We review a dismissal as
frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for abuse of discretion.
Martin v. Scott, 156 F.3d 578, 579-80 (5th Cir. 1998).
Beasley contends that the district court erred in dismissing
his claims that defendant Major Mangrum forced him to move his
personal property several hundred yards during a November 29,
1999, shakedown at his correctional unit, which allegedly
resulted in his “black[ing] out” due to his high blood pressure
and related medical problems. He has alleged that the other
defendants violated his rights subsequent to this incident by
rejecting his internal grievances on the matter. The district
court dismissed the complaint following a hearing pursuant to
Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985), determining
that Beasley had conceded in his hearing testimony that Mangrum
had not been aware of his medical condition at the time he
ordered Beasley to move his property.
Both in his timely FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e) motion for
“reconsideration” and in his complaint, however, Beasley made
clear that he was alleging that Mangrum had been aware of both
his medical problems and of a physician-issued “cell pass” that,
at the time of the shakedown, restricted Beasley to his cell
except for eating and going to the bathroom. The district court
appears to have misconstrued or misunderstood Beasley’s answer to
No. 01-21252
-3-
a question during the hearing, when Beasley answered that he had
not informed Mangrum of his medical condition “before” the day of
the November 29, 2001, shakedown.
Although Beasley’s allegations may be sufficient to support
a deliberate-indifference claim against Mangrum, on the ground
that they showed that Mangrum was aware that Beasley faced a
substantial risk of serious harm, see Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.
825, 839-40 (1994), we AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of
Beasley’s claim against Mangrum on an alternative ground. See
Sojourner T v. Edwards, 974 F.2d 27, 30 (5th Cir. 1992). The
only relief sought by Beasley with respect to defendant Mangrum
was that Mangrum be “removed from his duties.” The district
court was not authorized to grant such relief in the nature of
mandamus relief, which is not available to federal courts to
direct state officials in the performance of their duties and
functions. See Moye v. Clerk, DeKalb County Superior Court,
474 F.2d 1275, 1275-76 (5th Cir. 1973); see also Moawad v.
Childs, 673 F.2d 850, 852 (5th Cir. 1982).
As for the supervisory defendants Assistant Warden Reagans
and Regional Director Gomez, the district court properly
concluded that Beasley’s allegations failed to establish any
causal connection between their conduct and any Eighth Amendment
violation. See Thompkins v. Belt, 828 F.2d 298, 303 (5th Cir.
1987). Beasley’s allegations against Nurse Villaraza show only
that she disagreed with him about his medical treatment; the
allegations are insufficient to support a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim.
See Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991).
No. 01-21252
-4-
Beasley has made no specific allegations against a fifth named
defendant, Senior Warden Medart. Accordingly, the district
court’s order dismissing the complaint is AFFIRMED.
AFFIRMED.
Beasley v. Mangrum
Combined Opinion