Maldonado v. Dickerson, et al, No. 04-41708 (5th Cir. 2006)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT September 7, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 04-41708 Summary Calendar EFRAIN MALDONADO, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant, versus DANIEL DICKERSON, Correctional Officer; MARVIN OGLETREE, Correctional Officer; KEVIN BASS, Correctional Officer; JOHNNY THOMPSON, SR., Correctional Officer; STEPHEN FARMER, Defendants-Appellees. ----------------------------------------------------------Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 9:02-CV-184 ----------------------------------------------------------Before DeMOSS, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Efrain Maldonado, Jr., Texas prisoner # 459751, appeals from the dismissal of his civil rights claims as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A as to defendants Dickerson, Thompson, Bass, and Farmer and from the grant of summary judgment for Ogletree. We review dismissals under § 1915A * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. de novo. Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373 (5th Cir. 2005). We also review a district court s grant of summary judgment de novo. Topalian v. Ehrman, 954 F.2d 1125, 1131 (5th Cir. 1992). Maldonado argues that the district court erred in dismissing his claims against Dickerson, Thompson, Bass, and Farmer as frivolous. The district court did not err in dismissing the excessiveuse-of-force claims against these defendants for lack of personal involvement in a constitutional deprivation. See Thompson v. Steele, 709 F.2d 381, 382 (5th Cir. 1983). Maldonado failed to set forth a nonfrivolous conspiracy claim. See Kerr v. Lyford, 171 F.3d 330, 340 (5th Cir. 1999). Maldonado has not demonstrated plain error with respect to his failure-to-intervene claim. See Crawford v. Falcon Drilling Co., Inc., 131 F.3d 1120, 1123 (5th Cir. 1997); cf. Hale v. Townley, 45 F.3d 914, 919 (5th Cir. 1995). Maldono argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment for Ogletree on his excessive-use-of-force claim. The undisputed facts support the district court s determination that the force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline rather than maliciously and sadistically to cause harm. See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1992). Maldonado has not demonstrated an abuse of discretion in the district court s grant of a protective order as to discovery. See Richardson v. Henry, 902 F.2d 414, 417 (5th Cir. 1990). AFFIRMED. -2-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.