IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-30391
Summary Calendar
CHARLES CARTER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
BURL CAIN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary,
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 96-CV-270-B-1
- - - - - - - - - -
February 20, 1998
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Charles Carter, Louisiana State Prisoner # 115957, appeals
the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights claims for
failure to state a claim. Carter argues that the district court
erred in dismissing his claims of deliberate indifference to
serious medical needs, cruel and unusual punishment, and
retaliation. He contends, for the first time on appeal, that he
was denied access to the courts because prison officers failed to
mail certain pleadings to the district court and that their
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 97-30391
-2-
action in failing to mail the pleadings constituted retaliation.
He also argues, in conclusional terms only, that the facts as
alleged in his complaint demonstrate the existence of a
conspiracy and that he was subjected to labor before an
adjudication of guilt.
Carter’s “supplement in support of notice to appeal” and
“motion to amend supplement in support of notice to appeal,”
which are construed as requests to file supplemental briefs is
DENIED. These supplemental briefs are STRICKEN. To the extent
that Carter seeks to enlarge the appellate record, his request is
DENIED. Carter’s request for extraordinary relief, which is
entitled “request for an emergency administrative remedy,” is
DENIED.
The district court did not err in dismissing Carter’s
deliberate-indifference-to-serious-medical-needs claim because
Carter’s allegations are of mere negligence, which do not give
rise to a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 cause of action. See Varnado v.
Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991). Similarly, the
district court did not err in dismissing Carter’s claim that his
initial work assignment upon reentry into Angola subjected him to
cruel and unusual punishment. See Jackson v. Cain, 864 F.2d
1235, 1246 (5th Cir. 1989) (negligent work assignment that is not
cruel and unusual per se is not unconstitutional). Because
Carter’s conclusional allegations of retaliation were
insufficient to allege a cognizable § 1983 claim, the district
No. 97-30391
-3-
court did not err in dismissing his retaliation claim. See
Whittington v. Lynaugh, 842 F.2d 818, 819 (5th Cir. 1988).
Carter’s claims, raised for the first time on appeal, of
denial of access to the courts, retaliation, conspiracy, and
punishment before an adjudication of guilt involve the resolution
of factual questions and will not be addressed by this court.
See Robertson v. Plano City Tex., 70 F.3d 21, 23 (5th Cir. 1995).
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS DENIED;
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS STRICKEN; REQUEST TO SUPPLEMENT APPELLATE
RECORD DENIED; MOTION FOR EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF DENIED. AFFIRMED.