Williams v. Polunsky
Williams v. Polunsky
Opinion
No. 99-40760 -1-
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-40760 Summary Calendar
JAMES WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ALLAN B. POLUNSKY; JAMES A. COLLINS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; WAYNE SCOTT, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; GARY GOMEZ; MICHAEL WARREN, DR.,
Defendants-Appellees.
-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. G-96-CV-67 -------------------- February 4, 2000
Before KING, Chief Judge, and POLITZ and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
James Williams, Texas prisoner # 296974, appeals the
district court’s summary-judgment dismissal of his
42 U.S.C. § 1983lawsuit against several Texas Department of Criminal
Justice officials, alleging that they were deliberately
indifferent to his safety by failing to implement a policy to
protect him from violent HIV-positive inmates, specifically from
Robert Matthews, who assaulted and bit him, infecting him with
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. No. 99-40760 -2-
HIV. With the exception of the dismissal of Robert Treon,
Williams does not brief any argument challenging the district
court’s dismissal as frivolous of his claims against Matthews, C.
Mann, Michael Warren, and Gary Gomez, and the argument is
therefore waived. See Yohey v. Collins,
985 F.2d 222, 224-25(5th Cir. 1993). Williams has filed a motion for leave to file
an out-of-time reply brief, which motion is GRANTED. He argues
for the first time in his reply brief that dismissal of Treon was
error, but this court will not consider the argument. See United
States v. Prince,
868 F.2d 1379, 1386(5th Cir. 1989).
Williams conceded in his verified answers to the magistrate
judge’s interrogatories that he was not aware that Matthews had
any prior history of violent behavior; that he had never been
threatened by Matthews or any other HIV-positive inmate before
the August 28, 1995, attack; and that he never reported a threat
by Matthews or any other inmate and had never requested
protection. His conclusional assertions that Matthews had a
prior violent history of which the appellees were aware do not
constitute competent summary-judgment evidence and do not satisfy
his summary-judgment burden. See Little v. Liquid Air Corp.,
37 F.3d 1069, 1075(5th Cir. 1994)(en banc); Topalian v. Ehrman,
954 F.2d 1125, 1131(5th Cir. 1992). Because there is no record
evidence that Matthews had a violent history of which the
appellees were aware and which they disregarded, Williams has
failed to demonstrate deliberate indifference on their part, and
his Eighth-Amendment claim fails. See Farmer v. Brennan,
511 U.S. 825, 837(1994); Woods v. Edwards,
51 F.3d 577, 581(5th No. 99-40760 -3-
Cir. 1995); Jacquez v. Procunier,
801 F.2d 789, 792(5th Cir.
1986).
Although Williams acknowledges that there is a prison policy
which provides for the segregation of violent inmates, he
contends, for the first time on appeal, that the policy is
inadequate because it failed to protect him from Matthews
specifically. This newly raised claims will not be considered.
See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co.,
183 F.3d 339, 342(5th
Cir. 1999), petition for cert. filed, No. 99-884 (Nov. 24, 1999).
Alternatively, the claim is essentially one of negligence, which
is insufficient to state a claim under § 1983. See Bowie v.
Procunier,
808 F.2d 1142, 1143(5th Cir. 1987). Williams also
argues, for the first time on appeal, that the district court
erred in failing to allow him to conduct discovery, which claim
similarly will not be considered. See Leverette,
183 F.3d at 342.
Williams has failed to demonstrate that the district court
erred in granting summary judgment, and the district court’s
judgment is AFFIRMED. Williams’ motions for leave to file a
supplemental brief and for the appointment of counsel are DENIED.
AFFIRMED. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE OUT-OF-TIME REPLY BRIEF
GRANTED; MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF AND FOR
THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED.
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished