Opinion · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
NOBLE v. GRIMES, 350 Fed.Appx. 892 (5th Cir. 2009)
350 Fed.Appx. 892
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 2009-10-23
- Topic
- general
NOBLE v. GRIMES, 350 Fed.Appx. 892 (5th Cir. 2009) Reginald Arleigh NOBLE, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Joe A. GRIMES, AssistantWarden; Brian J. Clerk, Major; Levin W.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed NOBLE v. GRIMES, 350 Fed.Appx. 892 (5th Cir. 2009). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
NOBLE v. GRIMES,350 Fed.Appx. 892(5th Cir. 2009)
Reginald Arleigh NOBLE, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Joe A. GRIMES, Assistant
Warden; Brian J. Clerk, Major; Levin W. Fuller, Captain; David L. Price,
Lt.; Kenneth L. Jones, Maintenance Supervisor, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-10241 Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
October 23, 2009.
Page 893
Reginald Arleigh Noble, Amarillo, TX, pro se.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, USDC No. 2:09-CV-30.
Before: HIGGINBOTHAM, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Reginald Arleigh Noble, Texas prisoner # 1019577, appeals from the district court's dismissal of his civil rights complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Noble argues that he sustained a head contusion after he slipped and fell in standing water in the prison shower area at his place of incarceration. He contends that the defendants were aware of the dangerous conditions in the shower area but nonetheless failed to take any preventative measures.
Noble's allegations are insufficient to show that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm.See Palmer v. Johnson,193 F.3d 346,352(5th Cir. 1999). Noble's allegations specifically do not permit a finding that the defendants either (a) had sufficient information to infer that the conditions in the shower area presented a substantial risk of harm to prisoners' health and safety or (b) actually drew an inference that inmates faced a risk of harm from the conditions in the shower area.Seeid.Instead, Noble's complaint, at most, alleges a claim of negligence, which is not actionable under42 U.S.C. § 1983.See Daniels v. Williams,474 U.S. 327,332-36,106 S.Ct. 662,88 L.Ed.2d 662(1986);Marsh v. Jones,53 F.3d 707,711-12(5th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, the district court did not err when it dismissed Noble's complaint for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted.
The district court's dismissal counts as a strike against Noble.See Adepegba v. Hammons,103 F.3d 383,387(5th Cir. 1996). Noble is hereby CAUTIONED that, if he accumulates three strikes, he may not 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.See28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
AFFIRMED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.Page 894
Noble's allegations are insufficient to show that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm.See Palmer v. Johnson,193 F.3d 346,352(5th Cir. 1999). Noble's allegations specifically do not permit a finding that the defendants either (a) had sufficient information to infer that the conditions in the shower area presented a substantial risk of harm to prisoners' health and safety or (b) actually drew an inference that inmates faced a risk of harm from the conditions in the shower area.Seeid.Instead, Noble's complaint, at most, alleges a claim of negligence, which is not actionable under42 U.S.C. § 1983.See Daniels v. Williams,474 U.S. 327,332-36,106 S.Ct. 662,88 L.Ed.2d 662(1986);Marsh v. Jones,53 F.3d 707,711-12(5th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, the district court did not err when it dismissed Noble's complaint for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted.
The district court's dismissal counts as a strike against Noble.See Adepegba v. Hammons,103 F.3d 383,387(5th Cir. 1996). Noble is hereby CAUTIONED that, if he accumulates three strikes, he may not 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.See28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
AFFIRMED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.Page 894