Springer v. Underwood

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-10977
Summary Calendar

LINDSEY KENT SPRINGER,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

M. UNDERWOOD, Warden, FCI Seagoville,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:19-CV-1433

Before DENNIS, ELROD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
*

Lindsey Kent Springer, federal prisoner # 02580-063, appeals the
dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition in which he argued
that he was exposed to asbestos and mold at the prison and contended that
prison officials did not provide medical treatment for his exposure. He sought
an order for immediate medical care and a reduced sentence. The district court

*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5
TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
May 28, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 19-10977 Document: 00515432355 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/28/2020

No. 19-10977
2
determined that he should have raised his claims in a civil rights complaint
rather than a § 2241 habeas corpus petition.
Springer argues that the district court erroneously relied on the Prison
Litigation Reform Act when certifying that his appeal was not taken in good
faith, did not consider his objections to the magistrate judge’s report, and did
not provide reasons for its certification. He also reiterates his claims of
asbestos and mold exposure and lack of medical treatment.
By moving to proceed IFP, Springer is challenging the district court’s
certification that this appeal was not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor,
117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Our inquiry into an appellant’s good faith
“is limited to whether the appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits
(and therefore not frivolous).” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.
1983) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Springer’s claims regarding the district court’s certification and
consideration of his objections are unavailing as they are belied by the record.
His exposure and medical treatment claims directly address his conditions of
confinement and, thus, should have been raised in a civil rights complaint. See
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S.
388 (1971); Butts v. Martin, 877 F.3d 571, 587 (5th Cir. 2017); Pack v. Yusuff,
218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000); Carson v. Johnson, 112 F.3d 818, 820-21 (5th
Cir. 1997). The district court did not err in dismissing Springer’s § 2241 habeas
corpus petition. As Springer’s appeal sets forth no issue of arguable merit, it
is frivolous. See Howard, 707 F.2d at 219-20.
Accordingly, Springer’s motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is
DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at
202 & n.24; 5
TH CIR. R. 42.2.
Case: 19-10977 Document: 00515432355 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/28/2020