United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-50621

Summary Calendar

____________

Louis Charles Chapman, 

Plaintiff—Appellant, 

versus

Danny Wigfall, Jailer-Bell County Jail; FNU Varela, Jailer-Bell 

County Jail, 

Defendants—Appellees. 

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 6:23-CV-572

______________________________

Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Louis Charles Chapman appeals the district court’s 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) dismissal for failure to state a claim of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

lawsuit. We review such dismissal de novo, Legate v. Livingston, 822 F.3d 

207, 209-10 (5th Cir. 2016), accepting Chapman’s pleaded facts as true and 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 9, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-50621 Document: 00517027565 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/09/2024
No. 23-50621

2

viewing them in the light most favorable to him. See Whitley v. Hanna, 

726 F.3d 631, 637 (5th Cir. 2013). 

Chapman renews his claim that Officers Wigfall and Varela were 

deliberately indifferent to his safety when they led him back from recreation 

to his dorm, where he was punched in the face by another inmate. He asserts 

that the officers were negligent and violated prison policy by failing to 

conduct a walk-through to clear other inmates and secure the scene before 

leading him back. However, he has abandoned by failing to brief any 

argument challenging the district court’s determination that the claim that 

the officers violated prison policy failed as it was not one of a constitutional 

dimension. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); see also 

Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 

1987). Chapman has likewise abandoned by failing to brief any argument 

challenging the district court’s reason for dismissing his claims against the 

officers in their official capacities. See Yohey, 985 F.2d at 225; Brinkmann, 

813 F.2d at 748.

Regarding the claim against the officers in their individual capacities, 

Chapman conceded in the district court that the officers were unaware that 

he faced any risk of harm or assault; consequently, he failed to state a claim 

for deliberate indifference. See Thompson v. Upshur Cnty., 245 F.3d 447, 458-

59 (5th Cir. 2001). Chapman now asserts, for the first time on appeal, that 

he and the inmate who assaulted him “had been combative toward each other 

verbally before the assault,” that “the dorm and B shift knew it,” and thus 

that the officers violated his constitutional rights by ignoring an obvious 

danger. Because he did not assert these facts in the district court, this court 

will not consider them. See Theriot v. Parish of Jefferson, 185 F.3d 477, 491 

n.26 (5th Cir. 1999). 

Case: 23-50621 Document: 00517027565 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/09/2024
No. 23-50621

3

The district court correctly determined that Chapman’s allegations 

amounted to no more than a claim that the officers were negligent, which 

does not give rise to a cognizable constitutional claim. Alderson v. Concordia 

Par. Corr. Facility, 848 F.3d 415, 420 (5th Cir. 2017); see Neals v. Norwood, 

59 F.3d 530, 533 (5th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, dismissal was appropriate, and 

the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. Chapman’s motion for the 

appointment of counsel is DENIED. See Delaughter v. Woodall, 909 F.3d 

130, 140-41 (5th Cir. 2018); Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 213 (5th Cir. 

1982). 

This court’s affirmance of the district court’s dismissal of Chapman’s 

complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) counts as a single strike under 

§ 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996), 

abrogated in part on other grounds by Coleman v. Tollefson, 575 U.S. 532, 534-41 

(2015); see also § 1915(h). Chapman is WARNED that if he accumulates 

three strikes, he will no longer be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in any 

civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility 

unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g). 

Case: 23-50621 Document: 00517027565 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/09/2024