Ernest Villa Marquez Plaintiff— v. Sheriff Mike Griffis; Michael Gardner, Commissioner; Shelly Jhonson, Nurse; Captain James McKinney; RN Robin McCullough; Nurse Atticus Mose; Ector County Defendants—

Background Ernest Villa Marquez, a Texas prisoner, filed a 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 complaint alleging that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his dental and medical needs while he was a pretrial detainee. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies, dismissed some official-capacity claims as duplicative, and dismissed for failure to state a deliberate-indifference claim. Marquez then sought to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. The court’s reasoning The Fifth Circuit treated Marquez’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal as a challenge to the district court’s certification that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. The court said his briefing was minimal and, although he asserted that defendants denied adequate medical care for dental problems, he did not challenge the district court’s reasons for dismissing the claims against each defendant. Because he failed to address those grounds, the claims were deemed abandoned. On that basis, the court concluded he had not shown a nonfrivolous appellate issue, denied in forma pauperis status, and dismissed the appeal as frivolous. At no point, however, does he challenge the district court’s reasons for dismissing the claims against each defendant. The claims are therefore deemed abandoned. What it means going forward For this appellant, the appeal could not proceed in forma pauperis and was dismissed as frivolous. More broadly, the decision underscores that an appellant must directly attack the district court’s stated grounds for dismissal or risk abandonment of the issues on appeal.