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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-30198

Summary Calendar

CARLOUS T LEWIS

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

RICHARD BRAZZEL, Acting Warden Union Parish Detention Center; DONNIE

ADAMS, Captain at Union Parish Detention Center; JAMES HARRIS; BOB

BUCKLEY, Sheriff Union Parish

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:07-CV-1227

Before DAVIS, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Carlous T. Lewis, Louisiana prisoner # 102982, moves for leave to proceed

in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal following the dismissal as frivolous and for

failure to state a claim of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights lawsuit. By moving

for IFP, Lewis challenges the district court’s denial of IFP and certification that

the appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 11, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-30198

2

(5th Cir. 1997); FED. R. APP. P. 24(a). This court may authorize Lewis to proceed

IFP on appeal if the appeal presents a nonfrivolous issue. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1);

see Holmes v. Hardy, 852 F.2d 151, 153 (5th Cir. 1988). The inquiry into Lewis’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) (citation omitted).

Lewis contends that his complaint was improperly dismissed, and he

renews his claims that officials at the Union Parish Detention Center (UPDC)

violated his Eighth Amendment rights when they forced him to wear shower

shoes to court and when they denied him medical treatment. He does not brief

any argument regarding the claims that he was forced to pay part of his medical

costs, that his due process rights were violated when he was placed in the “hole,”

that UPDC officials discriminated against him, or that he was improperly

assigned a top bunk. Accordingly, he has abandoned those claims. See Yohey v.

Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Lewis additionally argues, for the

first time on appeal, that UPDC officials and state courts violated his due

process rights when they ignored his administrative grievance and civil

complaint. These new claims will not be considered. See Shanks v. AlliedSignal,

Inc., 169 F.3d 988, 993 n.6 (5th Cir. 1999); Burch v. Coca-Cola Co., 119 F.3d 305,

319 (5th Cir. 1997).

The district court determined that the Eighth Amendment claims failed

because Lewis had not demonstrated that UPDC officials were deliberately

indifferent to his safety or health. It found that Lewis’s allegations amounted

to, at most, a claim for negligence, which did not give rise to a constitutional

violation. Lewis now asserts that he is entitled to redress for negligence under

the Eighth Amendment. He is incorrect. Allegations comprising negligence are

insufficient to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment. See Adames v. Perez,

331 F.3d 508, 514 (5th Cir. 2003); Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th

Cir. 1991). Lewis additionally contends that UPDC officials were deliberately
No. 08-30198

3

indifferent in failing to provide him with shoes for court. However, he briefs no

argument that UPDC officials knew he faced a serious risk of harm from a fall

if he wore shower slippers to court but willfully disregarded that risk, and the

claim therefore fails. See Yohey, 985 F.2d at 224-25; see also Farmer, 511 U.S.

at 847.

Lewis further argues that he was denied medical care after his fall at the

courthouse. To the extent that Lewis raises a new claim that he thrown into the

hole following his fall and denied any medical care, it should not be considered.

See Shanks, 169 F.3d at 993 n.6. Moreover, the claim is defeated by the

allegations of Lewis’s complaint acknowledging that he was taken to the hospital

after his fall. To the extent that Lewis seeks to renew his original claim that he

was denied adequate medical care when he was denied prescription medication

and chiropractor visits, a very liberal construction of his appellate brief, he has

not shown any error in connection with the dismissal of the claim. Lewis’s

allegations show only disagreement with the medical treatment he received, or,

at worst, negligence, either of which is insufficient to give rise to a claim for

deliberate indifference. See Varnado, 920 F.2d at 321.

Lewis has not demonstrated a nonfrivolous ground for appeal.

Accordingly, his IFP motion is denied, and the appeal is dismissed. See Baugh,

117 F.3d at 202; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Both the district court’s dismissal of Lewis’s

lawsuit and this court’s dismissal of the instant appeal count as “strikes” under

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir.

1996). Lewis is cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes under § 1915(g),

he may not 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).

IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2; SANCTION

WARNING ISSUED.