Chandler v. Honeycutt

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-41018 Summary Calendar DANA AMBROSE CHANDLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus KENNETH HONEYCUTT, Correctional Officer III, Michael Unit; ERIC K. WHITE, Correctional Officer III, Michael Unit; UNIDENTIFIED ADAMS, Correctional Officer III, Michael Unit; CALVIN E. HATTON, Correctional Officer, Michael Unit; TOMMY CROUCH, Correctional Officer, Michael Unit; UNIDENTIFIED BELL, Nurse, Michael Unit; ROBERT GENNA ANN, Medical Assistant, Michael Unit; WILLIAM D. JOCK, Lieutenant, Michael Unit; BRIAN K. CRAWFORD, Correctional Officer, Michael Unit; THOMAS EDWARDS, Correctional Officer III, Michael Unit; RICHARD D. TAYLOR, Sergeant, Michael Unit; GENE R. MARTIN, Captain, Michael Unit; RANDY D. TUCKER, Medical Staff, Michael Unit; SANDRA LYNN MOORE, Sub. Counsel, Michael Unit; WILLIAM R. WATTS, Captain, Michael Unit; SAMUEL STEVENS, Sub. Counsel, Michael Unit; DONALD BUTLER, Lieutenant, Michael Unit; MOLLY S. JOHNSON, Nurse, Michael Unit; TIMOTHY D. SANDERS, Nurse, Michael Unit; CHRIS FLEETWOOD, Correctional Officer III, Michael Unit; CHET A. THOMAS, Internal Affairs Division, Michael Unit; MICHAEL A. WILSON, Warden, Michael Unit; ROBERT HERRERA, Assistant Warden, Michael Unit; WAYNE SCOTT, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division; HOLLIS W. DRISKELL, Correctional Officer, Michael Unit; DENNIS K. BLEVENS, Assistant Warden, Michael Unit; ALL DEFENDANTS, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:97-CV-792 January 4, 2000 Before GARWOOD, BARKSDALE and DENNIS, Circuit Judges: PER CURIAM:* * 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 R. 47.5 the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 98-41018 -2- Dana Ambrose Chandler, Texas prisoner #603385, appeals from the dismissal of his civil rights action. Chandler, who sought damages only, contends that he was the victim of excessive force; that he was deprived of adequate medical care; and that the defendants failed to follow internal prison policies. Chandler provides no factual allegations or legal arguments to support his contention that the defendants failed to follow prison policies. He has failed to brief the issue for appeal. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Chandler also has failed to brief whether the district court erred by dismissing his medical claim for failure to exhaust prison administrative remedies; that is the dispositive issue regarding his medical claim. On the facts as found by the magistrate judge, Chandler suffered no physical injury as the result of the force used against him in December 1996, the force used against him was “restrained” and the defendants’ “actions were objectively and subjectively reasonable.” He had no cause of action. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e); Harper v. Showers, 174 F.3d 716, 719 (5th Cir. 1999). Chandler’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). We caution Chandler that once he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in any civil action or appeal filed while he is in prison unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 2 APPEAL DISMISSED; WARNING ISSUED. 3