Case: 20-40349 Document: 00516131141 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/14/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
December 14, 2021
No. 20-40349
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar
Clerk
Daniel G. Sanchez,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Candance R. Moore; Megan R. Thompson; Philip J.
Sifuentes; Issac Kwarteng, Medical Doctor; Tanya Lawson,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:19-CV-69
Before Davis, Jones, and Elrod, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Daniel G. Sanchez, Texas prisoner # 1288875, appeals the district
court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim for relief. We
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-40349 Document: 00516131141 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/14/2021
No. 20-40349
review de novo the district court’s dismissal. See Black v. Warren, 134 F.3d
732, 733-34 (5th Cir. 1998).
Sanchez asserts that he was denied the right of access to courts when
he was required to forfeit his remaining time in the law library after he used
the restroom. Because Sanchez did not allege any specific instance when his
ability to pursue his legal claims was hindered as a result of the restroom
policy of the law library, he failed to state a claim for relief with respect to his
claim of denial of access to courts. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351
(1996).
Sanchez further complains that some of the defendants were
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs because of the law
library’s restroom policy and because they refused to issue a medical pass for
frequent urination. Sanchez has not alleged facts establishing that the law
library restroom policy or the denial of a medical pass for frequent urination
constitutes a health threat that gives rise to a claim of deliberate indifference.
See Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 297 (1991).
His conclusory assertions that Sifuentes was liable in his role as a
supervisor because he did not get involved with the law library policies or the
issuance of a medical pass do not establish an affirmative participation in the
denial of his rights or the implementation of unconstitutional policies by
Sifuentes. See Thompkins v. Belt, 828 F.2d 298, 304 (5th Cir. 1987).
To the extent Sanchez raises new claims of equal protection violations
and claims arising under the Americans with Disabilities Act, we will not
consider them. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342
(5th Cir. 1999). Finally, Sanchez fails to challenge the district court’s
determination that, to the extent he raised a due process claim, he failed to
state a claim for relief. He also fails to challenge the dismissal of his
2
Case: 20-40349 Document: 00516131141 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/14/2021
No. 20-40349
retaliation claims. Accordingly, these claims are abandoned. See Brinkmann
v. Dallas Cnty. Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. The dismissal of his
complaint by the district court counts as a strike under § 1915(g).
See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996), abrogated in part
on other grounds by Coleman v. Tollefson, 575 U.S. 532, 535-39 (2015). During
the pendency of this appeal, another complaint filed by Sanchez was
dismissed by the district court as frivolous and for failure to state a claim,
resulting in a strike. Sanchez v. Thompson, No. 2:21-CV-44 (S.D. Tex.
Oct. 12, 2021) (unpublished). Sanchez is WARNED that, once he
accumulates three strikes, he may not 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 § 1915(g).
3