Opinion ID: 7779
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Housing Transfer

Text: Fowler argues that the district court erred in dismissing as frivolous his claim regarding the housing transfer because he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment when Captain Ellis transferred him to the dormitory to make it appear as though he had snitched on inmate English. Specifically, Fowler contends that, as a result of being labelled a snitch, he has suffered an impairment to his reputation, personal humiliation, and mental anguish associated with the fear of being attacked or killed. He further argues that, because the transfer subjected him to a substantial risk of injury, the fact that he was not actually attacked is irrelevant. The defendants counter that dismissal was proper because Fowler presented no evidence that he actually suffered pain as a result of the transfer or that Captain Ellis was aware of the risk that the transfer would create. A § 1983 plaintiff who proceeds in forma pauperis is subject to dismissal if his complaint is frivolous within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Under § 1915(d), a complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A complaint is legally frivolous if it is premised on an indisputably meritless legal theory, Neitzke, 9 490 U.S. at 327. Thus, a complaint that raises an arguable question of law may not be dismissed under § 1915(d), although it may be subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) if the court ultimately resolves the legal question against the plaintiff. Id. at 328. A complaint is factually frivolous if the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them. Denton, 504 U.S. at 33. The complaint may not be dismissed as factually frivolous simply because the court finds the plaintiff's allegations unlikely. Id. We review § 1915(d) dismissals for an abuse of discretion because a determination of frivolousnessSQwhether legal or factualSQis a discretionary one. Id.; Moore v. Mabus, 976 F.2d 268, 270 (5th Cir. 1992). In reviewing for abuse of discretion, we consider whether (1) the plaintiff is proceeding pro se, (2) the court inappropriately resolved genuine issues of disputed fact, (3) the court applied erroneous legal conclusions, (4) the court has provided an adequate statement of reasons for dismissal which facilitates intelligent appellate review, and (5) the dismissal was with or without prejudice. Denton, 504 U.S. at 34. We have directed the district courts to distinguish between findings of factual, legal, or mixed factual and legal frivolousness and to reflect the considerations identified in Denton in entering § 1915(d) dismissals. Moore, 976 F.2d at 270. 10 In the case sub judice, the district court determined that Fowler's claim was frivolous because Fowler did not allege a deprivation of his Eighth Amendment rights. Specifically, the court reasoned that Fowler failed to allege that he was subjected to any violence or attacks as a result of the housing transfer and that he failed to support his conclusory claim regarding Captain Ellis's motive. Accordingly, the court dismissed this claim with prejudice. Prison officials have a duty under the Eighth Amendment to protect inmates from violence at the hands of other prisoners. Farmer v. Brennan, 114 S. Ct. 1970, 1976 (1994). To constitute an Eighth Amendment violation, the inmate must show that he is incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm and that the prison official's state of mind was one of deliberate indifference to the inmate's health or safety. Id. at 1977. A prison official is deliberately indifferent if he is both aware of the facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of harm exists and he draws the inference. Id. at 1979. Whether a prison official had the requisite knowledge of the substantial risk is a question of fact subject to demonstration by circumstantial evidence. Id. at 1981. Fowler alleged in his complaint that Captain Ellis told him that he was going to be moved from his cell to the dormitory in order to make it appear that he was being rewarded for snitching. This allegation is not conclusory. He also alleged 11 that Captain Ellis drew an inference that a substantial risk of harm existed in being labelled a snitch. As evidence of this risk, Fowler has submitted affidavits from other prisoners stating that Fowler's housing transfer after the incident with English was an indication that Fowler had snitched and that there was a hit on Fowler among the prison population. The fact that other prisoners did not actually attack Fowler does not defeat the claim because a prisoner subjected to a substantial risk of harm is not required to suffer physical injury before obtaining court-ordered correction. See Farmer, 114 S. Ct. at 1983. Given these allegations, we cannot say that Fowler's claim is indisputably meritless or wholly incredible such that it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing Fowler's housing transfer claim under § 1915(d).