IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-30551

Summary Calendar

TERRE ROMAONDO ENGLISH,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

WINN CORRECTIONAL CENTER; TIM KEITH; MISTER HOLDEN; 

MISTER WOODS; MEDICAL PERSONNEL WINN CORRECTIONAL,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 1-12-CV-2819

Before WIENER, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff-Appellant Terre Romaondo English, Louisiana prisoner # 

529417, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint naming Winn Correctional Center 

and various prison officials as defendants. He asserted that he was attacked 

by another improperly restrained inmate while they both were on a hospital 

trip outside of the prison. English was granted leave to proceed in forma 

* 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 16, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-30551 Document: 00512472310 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/16/2013
No. 13-30551

pauperis. The district court denied and dismissed English’s complaint as 

frivolous and for failure to state a claim. 

We review de novo the dismissal of a complaint under 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A as frivolous or for failure to state a claim, or both,

accepting the facts alleged in the complaint as true and viewing them in the 

light most favorable to the plaintiff. Green v. Atkinson, 623 F.3d 278, 279-80 

(5th Cir. 2010). We will affirm dismissal for failure to state a claim “if, taking 

the plaintiff’s allegations as true, it appears that no relief could be granted 

based on the plaintiff’s alleged facts.” Samford v. Dretke, 562 F.3d 674, 678 

(5th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “It is well 

established that prison officials have a constitutional duty to protect prisoners 

from violence at the hands of their fellow inmates.” Longoria v. Texas, 473 

F.3d 586, 592 (5th Cir. 2006). To succeed on a failure-to-protect claim, “the 

inmate must show that he is incarcerated under conditions posing a 

substantial risk of serious harm and that the prison officials acted with 

deliberate indifference to the inmate’s safety.” Johnson v. Johnson, 385 F.3d 

503, 524 (5th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We 

have declined to find deliberate indifference when an official should have 

inferred the risk posed to an inmate; instead, the official must draw such an 

inference. Adames v. Perez, 331 F.3d 508, 514 (5th Cir. 2003). 

To the extent English insists that prison guards acted negligently by 

failing to comply with policies regarding the restraint of inmates, assertions of 

negligence fail to state a claim for relief under § 1983. See Marsh v. Jones, 53 

F.3d 707, 711-12 (5th Cir. 1995). We also note that English asserted that the 

other prisoner was agitated with the guards, not that the other prisoner was 

angry at him or made any threats against him prior to the attack. We conclude, 

2

 Case: 13-30551 Document: 00512472310 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/16/2013
No. 13-30551

therefore, that the defendants would not have drawn an inference that the 

unrestrained prisoner would attack English. See Adames, 331 F.3d at 514. 

English also contends that, following the attack, prison medical officials 

failed properly to examine or treat him for a possible head injury. Prison 

officials violate the Eighth Amendment’s proscription against cruel and 

unusual punishment if they exhibit deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s 

serious medical needs. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 297 (1991). To prevail 

on a claim of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, the plaintiff must 

establish that a defendant denied him treatment, purposefully gave him 

improper treatment, ignored his medical complaints, or engaged in similar 

conduct clearly demonstrating wanton disregard. Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 

339, 346 (5th Cir. 2006). Unsuccessful medical treatment, negligence, medical 

malpractice, or a disagreement with medical treatment, however, will not 

support a § 1983 cause of action. See id. English’s claims represent a 

disagreement with his medical treatment, which is insufficient to show 

deliberate indifference. See Gobert, 463 F.3d at 346.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of English’s 

complaint for failure to state a claim. See Samford, 562 F.3d at 678. 

The district court’s dismissal of English’s § 1983 complaint as frivolous 

and for failure to state a claim counts as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). 

English is CAUTIONED that he now has one strike and that, if he accumulates 

three strikes, he will not be permitted to proceed IFP 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).

AFFIRMED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

3

 Case: 13-30551 Document: 00512472310 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/16/2013