Raines vs. Kaylo, (5th Cir. 2001)
Linked as:
Text
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .
R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-30758 Summary Calendar ANTHONY RAINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus BARON KAYLO; RABAYLA, Warden; UNKNOWN OFFICER, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (01-CV-458) October 15, 2001 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Plaintiff-Appellant Anthony Raines, Louisiana prisoner #350255, appeals the district court§ 1983 complaint, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), as frivolous. Raines contends that the district court erred in refusing to appoint counsel to represent him in this suit. He also asserts that the district court impro perly dismissed his claims against prison officials for violating the Eighth Amend ment by failing to protect him from injuries incurred during an attack by another inmate.
As Raines§ 1983 complaint did not involve any exceptional circumstances, and as the do cuments filed by Raines i ndicate that he was able to present his claims to th e court adequately and intelligently, the district court was not compelled to appoint counsel for Raines. See Ulmer v. Chancellor , 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982).
Not every injury “by one prisoner at the hands of another . . . translates into constitutional liability for prison officials responsible for the victim’s safety.” F armer v. Brennan , 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). Raines has not shown that he was “incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm and that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his need for protection.” Neals v. Norwood , 59 F.3d 530, 533 (5th Cir. 1995).
Accordingly, the district court was within its discretion in dismissing RainesÂ’s Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claims as frivolous. S iglar v. Hightower ,
The district court§ 1915(g).
See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 385 (5th Cir. 1996). Raines is warned that if he accumulates three § 1915(g).
AFFIRMED. SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
Sponsored links
This document cites
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - Ricky Neals, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Tommy Norwood, William L. Stephens, and Ronald Drewry, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 95-10209 Summary Calendar., 59 F.3d 530 (5th Cir. 1995)
- US Code - Title 28: Judiciary and Judicial Procedure - 28 USC 1915 - Sec. 1915. Proceedings in forma pauperis
- U.S. Supreme Court - Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - Valentino B. Adepegba, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Billy G. Hammons, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Special Agent Assigned To F C I Oakdale; John L. Nixon, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Acting Supervisory Special Agent At F C I Oakdale, Defendants-Appellees., 103 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 1996)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - Genus D. Ulmer, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. George Chancellor, Sheriff, and Jones County Board of Supervisors, Defendants-Appellees. No. 82-4007. Summary Calendar., 691 F.2d 209 (5th Cir. 1982)
See other documents that cite the same legislation
