Watkins v. Carter, No. 22-40477 (5th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 22-40477 Document: 00516807795 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/03/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 22-40477 Summary Calendar ____________ July 3, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Eric Watkins, Plaintiff—Appellant, versus Timothy Carter, also known as UP Carter; Dony Cartrette, also known as UP Coltran; Jody Upton, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Warden; Paul Hayes, Defendants—Appellees. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:11-CV-505 ______________________________ Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Eric Watkins, former federal prisoner # 55630-004, sued various federal prison officials pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), raising claims of excessive force and retaliation. Watkins appeals the dismissal of that suit under 28 _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 22-40477 Document: 00516807795 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/03/2023 No. 22-40477 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. He argues that the district court incorrectly declined to extend the Bivens remedy to his claims of excessive force and retaliation. We review de novo dismissals of a claim pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), using the same standard applied to dismissals pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Black v. Warren, 134 F.3d 732, 733-34 (5th Cir. 1998). A suit “will survive dismissal for failure to state a claim if it contains sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Legate v. Livingston, 822 F.3d 207, 210 (5th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Watkins has not stated a plausible claim that Bivens should be extended to the new contexts of excessive force and retaliation. See Egbert v. Boule, 142 S. Ct. 1793, 1807-08 (2022); Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120, 130-31, 135 (2017); Butler v. Porter, 999 F.3d 287, 293 (5th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 766 (2022). Therefore, the district court did not err in dismissing his suit for failure to state a claim. See Legate, 822 F.3d at 210; Black, 134 F.3d at 733-34. 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.
