Case Explained: Summary Calendar Brian A. Veals Plaintiff— v. Johnny Hedgemon, in his official and individual capacity; Bobby J Guidroz, in his official and individual capacity; Shaunn Callier Harden, in her official and individual capacity; Derek Metoeyer, in his official and individual capacity; Jessie Bellard, In His Individual & Official Capacity; James Doucet, In His Individual & Official Capacity; Glen Mayer; Wydette Williams; Carla Costello; William M. Gaar; Gregory J. Doucet; Nurse Frost; Nurse D; Kendall Thompson Defendants—

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Filed: 2026-07-06 The Fifth Circuit denied the plaintiff-appellant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed his appeal as frivolous. The court held that the district court correctly applied Louisiana’s one-year prescriptive period to the plaintiff’s deliberate-indifference claims, noting he filed suit more than a year after becoming aware of the alleged injuries without demonstrating a nonfrivolous argument for tolling under *contra non velenem* or other doctrines. Regarding his claim that defendants opened his legal mail, the court found the issue abandoned because the plaintiff failed to challenge the district court’s determination that such conduct did not raise a cognizable constitutional issue under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Consequently, the appeal lacks arguable merit under *Howard v. King*. As a practical consequence, this dismissal counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and the plaintiff is warned that accumulating three strikes will prohibit him from proceeding in forma pauperis in future civil actions or appeals while incarcerated unless he faces imminent danger of serious physical injury. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.