eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2006-02

Salazar v. Gonzales ( 2006 )


Menu:
 
  •                                                       United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                 February 13, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
No. 05-50218                       Clerk
Summary Calendar
RICHARD ANTHONY SALAZAR,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
GENARO GONZALES, Nurse; JOHN JENKINS, Lieutenant; MICHAEL
BROWN, Correctional Officer; TODD PETERSON, Correctional
Officer; JACOB POLASEK, Correctional Officer; WALTER
RENTRIA, Correctional Officer; JERRY TREVINO, Correctional
Officer; JOELENE ZEPEDA, Correctional Officer; BENJAMIN
PUENTE, Correctional Officer Sergeant; TONY CAMPOS,
Correctional Officer; JAMES PRETHER, Correctional Officer;
SONNY ALDACO, Correctional Officer; ADOLFO JAUREGUI, Mental
Health Psycotherapist; MELINDA HUDSON, Correctional Officer;
MICHAEL MAYFIELD, Correctional Officer Sergeant; THOMAS
HINKLE, Correctional Officer Captain; OSCAR MENDOZA,
Correctional Officer Warden II; JEFFREY MARTON, Correctional
Officer Assistant Warden; KENNETH R BRIGHT, JR, Correctional
Officer Assistant Warden; CARAL COLLINS, Correctional
Officer Sergeant; SAM SERNA, Correctional Officer; KARL G
DUESER, Correctional Officer,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:04-CV-724
--------------------
Before REAVLEY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
*
Richard Anthony Salazar (TDCJ # 897679) moves this court
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) following the
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-50218
-2-
dismissal of his civil rights complaint as frivolous.     We
construe Salazar’s motion as a challenge to the district court’s
determination that the appeal is not taken in good faith.         See
Baugh v. Taylor,
    117 F.3d 197
    , 202 (5th Cir. 1997).
In order to prove an Eighth Amendment violation in
connection with his placement in administrative segregation
despite his threats to cut himself, Salazar must prove that the
defendants were deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of
serious harm.     See Hare v. City of Corinth, Miss.,
    74 F.3d 633
    ,
648 (5th Cir. 1996).    Because Salazar has not shown that the
defendants knew that he was facing a substantial risk of serious
harm, his claim fails.     See
    id. at 648
    .   Salazar’s claim that he
did not receive medical attention for his self-inflicted injury
for 90 minutes also fails because Salazar has not shown that the
alleged delay resulted in substantial harm.      See Mendoza v.
Lynaugh,
    989 F.2d 191
    , 195 (5th Cir. 1993).     Further, Salazar’s
allegation that he did not receive a proper psychological
evaluation fails because “[d]isagreement with medical treatment
does not state a claim for Eighth Amendment indifference to
medical needs.”     Norton v. Dimazana,
    122 F.3d 286
    , 292 (5th Cir.
1997).   Finally, because Salazar has produced neither direct
evidence nor a chronology of events which suggest retaliation by
prison officials, his claim of retaliation by prison officials
fails.   See Johnson v. Rodriguez,
    110 F.3d 299
    , 310 (5th Cir.
1997).
No. 05-50218
-3-
Salazar has failed to establish that he seeks to present a
nonfrivolous issue for appeal.    Accordingly, his motion for IFP
is DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous.    See Baugh,
    117 F.3d at 
    202 n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
The three-strikes provision of
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (g)
“prohibits a prisoner from proceeding IFP if he has had three
actions or appeals dismissed for frivolousness, maliciousness, or
failure to state a claim.”    Carson v. Johnson,
    112 F.3d 818
    , 819
(5th Cir. 1997).   Because he has now accumulated more than three
strikes, see Salazar v. Moore, No. 01-20623 (5th Cir. June 19,
2002); Adepegba v. Hammons,
    103 F.3d 383
    , 387 (5th Cir. 1996);
Salazar is BARRED from proceeding IFP in any civil action or
appeal filed while he is incarcerated unless he is under imminent
danger of serious physical injury.    See § 1915(g).
MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; THREE-STRIKES BAR IMPOSED.