-1- IN THE UNITED ST

A TES COUR

T OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-10572

(Summary Calendar)

STEV AN MICHAEL WRIGHT

,

Plaintif f-Appellant,

versus

W A YNE SCOTT , Etc. ET AL.,

Defendants,

W A YNE SCOTT , Executive Director TDCJ; ADMINISTRA TION,

John Middleton Unit; JANIE COCKRELL, DIRECT OR, TEXAS

DEP AR TMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION;

NO FIRST NAME REED, Of ficer , Correctional Of

ficer 3

Field Boss/High Rider at the John Middleton Unit;

NO FIRST NAME CARSON, Unit Safety Of ficer; NO FIRST

NAME SHAFFER, DR.; M.D. REVELLE; FNNK CUR TI, DR.; NO FIRST

NAME F AGAN, DR.; NO FIRST NAME LAMBER T , W arden; NO FIRST

NAME RAINES, Assistant W arden; NO FIRST NAME LAST NAME

UNKNOWN, DR.; NO FIRST NAME W ALKER, Captain; NO FIRST

NAME MCGRA

VIES; NO FIRST NAME LEFEVRE; NO FIRST NAME BLACK;

NO FIRST NAME HARMON; UNIT SAFETY OFFICER,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United S tates District Court

for the Northern District of T exas

USDC No. 1:98-CV

-249

December 21, 2001

Before JONES, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.* 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.

-2- PER CURIAM: *

S tevan Michael W

right, T exas inmate # 631244, appeals the district court’s dismissal pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i ) of hi s p r o se, in forma pauperis

(“IFP”), 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted. W

e AFFIRM, concluding that the district court correctly dismissed W r ight’s motion

as frivolous. In addition, W right’s motion for an injunction is DENIED.

W right contends that he was denied recommended medical treatment for a rat bite and for a

left-ear condition. W

r ight also asserts that prison of ficials required him to sharpen tool s without

gloves, exposing him to the blood and body fluids of inmates who were infected with Hepatitis and

other infectious diseases. In addition, W r ight avers that he was housed in a dormitory with inmates

who had infectious diseases, including Hepatitis B. W r ight claims that he requested but was denied

a vaccination against Hepatitis B. As a result, he contracted the disease. In addit ion t o his other

claims, W

right also asserts that W ayne Scott (“Scott”) an d Janie Cockrell (“Cockrell”), T e xas

Department of Criminal Justice directors, have been negligent in their failure to educate and protect

inmates from the spread of Hepatitis and other infectious diseases in prison.

W e conduct a de novo review of the dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A of a prisoner’s 42

U.S.C. § 1983 claims that are frivolous or fail to state a claim. Ruiz v

. United S tates

, 160 F

.3d 273,

275 (5th Cir

. 1998); Martin v

. Scott

, 156 F

.3d 578, 579-80 (5th Cir . 1998), cert. denied , 527 U.S.

1041 (1999). W

e review the dismissal of claims as frivo lo us for an abuse of discretion. Siglar v

.

Hightow er , 1 12 F

.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir . 1997).2 W right also alleged in the district court that he did not received adequate medical

treatment after he contracted Hepatitis C. W right has not raised this ar gument on appeal and

therefore it is abandoned

. See Y ohey v . Collins , 985 F

.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir . 1993).

-3- In order to state a valid § 1983 cla im fo r relief for denial of adequate medical treatment, a

prisoner must allege deliberate indif ference to his serious medical needs. W ilson v

. Seitter

, 510 U.S.

294, 303 (1991); V

arnado v

. L ynaugh

, 920 F

.2d 320, 32 1 (5 t h Cir

. 1991). Deliberate indif f erence

to medical needs requires more than mere negligence on the part of prison of ficials. It requires that

prison of ficials be both aware of specific facts from which the inference could be drawn that a serious

medical need exists and then the prison of ficial, perceiving t h at risk, must deliberately fail to act.

Farmer v

. Br ennan

, 51 1 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). Thus, unsuccessful medical treatment , neglect or

medical malpractice does not give rise to a § 1983 cause of action. V arnado

, 920 F

.2d at 321. In

addition, an inmate’s disagreement with medical treatment is insuf ficient to establ

ish deliberate

indif ference. N

orton v

. Dimanzana

, 122 F

.3d 286, 292 (5 t h Cir

. 1997). Similarly

, a claim that

additional diagno st ic techniques or forms of treatment should have been utilized is inadequate for

purposes of a § 1983 claim. Estelle v . Gamble , 429 U.S. 97, 107 (1979).

W right has not established that the defendants acted with deliberate indif ference to his medical

needs based on the treatment t hat he received for his left ear condition and following the rat bite.

See V arnado v

. L ynaugh

, 920 F

.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir

. 1991) (disagreement with treatment received,

unsuccessful medical treatment, and negligence or medical malpractice do not amount to deliberate

indif ference and do not give rise to a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 c laim). W r ight also has not demonstrated

delibera te indif

ference in conjunction with his claims that the defendants refused to give him a

Hepatitis B vaccination, did not educate him concerning the risks of exposure to infectious diseases,

and did not prevent him from contracting Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C in prison. 2 F armer v

. Br ennan

,-4-

51 1 U.S. 825, 847 (1994); W ilson v

. Seiter

, 501 U.S. 294, 297 (1991). In addition, W r ight has failed

to establish that defendants Scott and Cockrell acted with deliberate indif ference. F

armer

, 51 1 U.S.

at 847; W ilson

, 501 U.S. at 297; Hernandez v

. Estelle

, 788 F

.2d 1 154, 1 158 (5 th Cir . 1986) (The

failure of prison of

ficials to follow established regulations does not give rise to a constitutional claim

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.).

W right’s appeal is without ar guable merit and is DISMISSED as friv olous. S ee 5th Cir

.

R. 42.2; Howar

d v . King , 707 F

.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir . 1983).

The district court’s dismissal of W right’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous and for

failure t o st at e a claim and the dismissal of the instant appeal as frivolous count as two strikes for

purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). S ee Adepegba v

. Hammons

, 103 F

.3d 383, 385-88 (5th Cir

. 1996).

W right accumulated one previous strike in W right v

. Dean

, No. 96-CV

-725 (N.D. T

ex. May 8,

1995). S ee Adepegba

, 103 F .3d at 388 (dismissal as frivolous by district court counts as strike once

prisoner has exhausted or waived his appeal). Accordingly , W r ight has accumulated three strikes and

i s subject to the 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) bar

. W r ight may not proceed in forma pauperis in any civil

action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facilit y unless he is under imminent

danger of serious physical injury

.

Fo r the foregoing reasons, W r ight’s appeal is DISMISSED. W r ight’s motion for an

injunction is also DENIED. In addition, we impose sanctions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).