IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-40970
Summary Calendar
DOUGLAS JAMES DURHAM,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
GARY L. JOHNSON ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:96-CV-431
- - - - - - - - - -
April 18, 1997
Before KING, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM:*
Douglas J. Durham, Texas inmate # 574899, appeals the
dismissal of his civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The
Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) requires a prisoner appealing
in forma pauperis to pay the full filing fee, $105. Durham has
insufficient funds to pay the full fee. Durham shall pay to the
Clerk of the District Court for the Eastern District of Texas an
initial partial filing fee of $3.82 which is 20 percent of his
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.
No. 96-40970
- 2 -
average monthly balance. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)(A).
Additionally, Durham is required to make monthly payments of
twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to his
account until the full filing fee is paid. See § 1915(b)(2).
The agency having custody of Durham shall collect the remainder
of the $105 filing fee and forward payment to the Clerk of the
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in accordance
with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2) each time the amount in Durham’s
account exceeds $10, until the full $105 filing fee is paid.
To establish his failure-to-protect claim, Durham must have
shown that he was “incarcerated under conditions posing a
substantial risk of serious harm and that prison officials were
deliberately indifferent to his need for protection.” Neals v.
Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 533 (5th Cir. 1995). Durham’s own
allegations show that prison officials have twice transferred him
to different units and placed him in segregated portions of those
units for his protection. These efforts to protect Durham were
not only reasonable, but they were effective as Durham had not
been assaulted for over six months prior to the hearing held in
this matter. This appeal is without arguable merit and thus
frivolous. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983).
IFP GRANTED; APPEAL DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.