Court Opinion

ID: 9916455
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-10 01:00:44.2028+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:39.035968
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50621         Document: 00517027565             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/09/2024

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 23-50621
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                                January 9, 2024
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   Louis Charles Chapman,                                                              Clerk

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   Danny Wigfall, Jailer-Bell County Jail; FNU Varela, Jailer-Bell
   County Jail,

                                               Defendants—Appellees.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                                USDC No. 6:23-CV-572
                      ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Louis Charles Chapman appeals the district court’s 28 U.S.C.
   § 1915(e)(2)(B) dismissal for failure to state a claim of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
   lawsuit. We review such dismissal de novo, Legate v. Livingston, 822 F.3d
   207, 209-10 (5th Cir. 2016), accepting Chapman’s pleaded facts as true and

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50621        Document: 00517027565        Page: 2    Date Filed: 01/09/2024

                                    No. 23-50621

   viewing them in the light most favorable to him. See Whitley v. Hanna,
   726 F.3d 631, 637 (5th Cir. 2013).
          Chapman renews his claim that Officers Wigfall and Varela were
   deliberately indifferent to his safety when they led him back from recreation
   to his dorm, where he was punched in the face by another inmate. He asserts
   that the officers were negligent and violated prison policy by failing to
   conduct a walk-through to clear other inmates and secure the scene before
   leading him back. However, he has abandoned by failing to brief any
   argument challenging the district court’s determination that the claim that
   the officers violated prison policy failed as it was not one of a constitutional
   dimension. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); see also
   Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.
   1987). Chapman has likewise abandoned by failing to brief any argument
   challenging the district court’s reason for dismissing his claims against the
   officers in their official capacities. See Yohey, 985 F.2d at 225; Brinkmann,
   813 F.2d at 748.
          Regarding the claim against the officers in their individual capacities,
   Chapman conceded in the district court that the officers were unaware that
   he faced any risk of harm or assault; consequently, he failed to state a claim
   for deliberate indifference. See Thompson v. Upshur Cnty., 245 F.3d 447, 458-
   59 (5th Cir. 2001). Chapman now asserts, for the first time on appeal, that
   he and the inmate who assaulted him “had been combative toward each other
   verbally before the assault,” that “the dorm and B shift knew it,” and thus
   that the officers violated his constitutional rights by ignoring an obvious
   danger. Because he did not assert these facts in the district court, this court
   will not consider them. See Theriot v. Parish of Jefferson, 185 F.3d 477, 491
   n.26 (5th Cir. 1999).

                                          2
Case: 23-50621       Document: 00517027565          Page: 3    Date Filed: 01/09/2024

                                     No. 23-50621

            The district court correctly determined that Chapman’s allegations
   amounted to no more than a claim that the officers were negligent, which
   does not give rise to a cognizable constitutional claim. Alderson v. Concordia
   Par. Corr. Facility, 848 F.3d 415, 420 (5th Cir. 2017); see Neals v. Norwood,
   59 F.3d 530, 533 (5th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, dismissal was appropriate, and
   the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. Chapman’s motion for the
   appointment of counsel is DENIED. See Delaughter v. Woodall, 909 F.3d
   130, 140-41 (5th Cir. 2018); Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 213 (5th Cir.
   1982).
            This court’s affirmance of the district court’s dismissal of Chapman’s
   complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) counts as a single strike under
   § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996),
   abrogated in part on other grounds by Coleman v. Tollefson, 575 U.S. 532, 534-41
   (2015); see also § 1915(h). Chapman is WARNED that if he accumulates
   three strikes, he will no longer 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. See § 1915(g).

                                           3