United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-30347

____________

Reginald Williams, 

Plaintiff—Appellant, 

versus

John Doe Nettles, Warden; Mark LaPrairie, Warden; John 

Doe Jack, Major; John Doe Simmon, Colonel, 

Defendants—Appellees. 

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:22-CV-558

______________________________

Before Barksdale, Southwick, and Graves, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Reginald Williams, Louisiana prisoner # 364941, filed a pro se, in forma 

pauperis 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging the defendants falsely charged 

him with possession of contraband and, after his transfer to administrative 

segregation, failed to protect him from an attack by another inmate. On 

appeal, Williams challenges the district court’s dismissal of his complaint for 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 20, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-30347 Document: 51-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/20/2024
No. 23-30347

2

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). He argues that he asserted viable 

claims concerning his false-disciplinary charge and the defendants’ failure to 

protect him during his confinement in administrative segregation. 

We review dismissals under Sections 1915A(b)(1) and 

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) de novo, using the same standard applicable to dismissals 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Legate v. Livingston, 

822 F.3d 207, 209–10 (5th Cir. 2016). To survive dismissal, a complaint must

contain “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief 

that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 210 (quotation marks and citations

omitted). “The pleadings and other filings of pro se litigants are construed 

liberally.” Luna v. Davis, 59 F.4th 713, 715 (5th Cir. 2023).

Beginning with his claim of a false-disciplinary charge, Williams 

argues the defendants violated his constitutional rights by falsely charging 

him with possession of contraband and by withholding and ignoring evidence 

of his innocence. Williams relies on an email from a prison official stating he

was not under investigation by the prison investigative services. Williams

contends the defendants ignored this email and convicted him of the false 

charge. 

Williams alleged in his complaint in district court that the prison 

provided a speedy process to challenge his disciplinary conviction. Because 

Williams was given an adequate procedural remedy to challenge the 

accusation, there was no due process violation. Collins v. King, 743 F.2d 248, 

253–54 (5th Cir. 1984); see also Grant v. Thomas, No. 94-50491, 1994 WL 

558835, at *1 (5th Cir. Sept. 23, 1994). Further, even if he alleged the 

procedural remedy was inadequate, Williams’s vague allegations of 

diminished everyday activities lasting approximately 100 days during his 

administrative segregation are not sufficiently atypical to implicate a due 

Case: 23-30347 Document: 51-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/20/2024
No. 23-30347

3

process liberty interest. Hernandez v. Velasquez, 522 F.3d 556, 563 & n.10 

(5th Cir. 2008). Consequently, there was no error in the dismissal of 

Williams’s false-disciplinary-charge claim.

Williams also alleges the defendants failed to protect him from being 

stabbed by a prisoner named Pendleton while in administrative segregation. 

Williams currently argues on appeal that, after he was placed in a cell with 

that prisoner, he asked to be moved because of his “inability to live and get 

along with Mr. Pendleton.” He asserts that, in response to his transfer 

request, the defendants told him he “better get a knife or know how to fight.” 

In his complaint in district court, though, Williams made only vague

allegations concerning the defendants’ knowledge of a risk of harm of his 

being transferred to Punitive Working Cell Block B due to “recent acts of 

violence” in that unit. He contended the defendants were aware of violent 

acts in the unit, including a murder, over the past two to five years and told 

him to “know how to fight or get a knife.” There was, however, no mention 

in his complaint of a prisoner named Pendleton or a specific fear of being in a 

cell with him. 

In his objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 

Recommendation, Williams included affidavits from two prisoners. The

affidavits stated Williams told the defendants that he feared for his life 

because of several violent acts in the Punitive Working Cell Block, including 

recent murders. 

Officials may act with deliberate indifference even if they have not 

been warned of the “specific danger” to a prisoner or a “particular method 

of harm.” Hernandez ex rel. Hernandez v. Tex. Dep’t of Protective & Regul. 

Servs., 380 F.3d 872, 881–82 (5th Cir. 2004). Williams’s complaint and the 

affidavits he submitted show only that he advised the defendants about his 

fears regarding past acts of violence in administrative segregation. Prisons, 

Case: 23-30347 Document: 51-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/20/2024
No. 23-30347

4

of course, are dangerous places where inmates frequently threaten violence 

against each other. See Newton v. Black, 133 F.3d 301, 307 (5th Cir. 1998). 

Williams did not allege a prior incident or threats specifically from an inmate 

named Pendleton. On appeal, Williams argues only that he sought to transfer 

out of the cell because he and Pendleton did not get along. 

Williams’s statements concerning his fear of violence in 

administrative segregation insufficiently conveyed to the defendants that he 

faced a substantial risk of serious harm. See Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 

533 (5th Cir. 1995). The defendants’ actions thus did not constitute 

deliberate indifference, and the district court did not err in dismissing 

Williams’s failure-to-protect claim. See Johnson v. Johnson, 385 F.3d 503, 

524 (5th Cir. 2004).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The district 

court’s dismissal of Williams’s Section 1983 complaint counts as a strike 

under Section 1915(g). See Coleman v. Tollefson, 575 U.S. 532, 537 (2015). 

Williams is CAUTIONED that, if he accumulates three strikes, he will not 

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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Case: 23-30347 Document: 51-1 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/20/2024