IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 97-40693
Summary Calendar
____________________
RODNEY EARL ALDRIDGE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JAMES A COLLINS, ET AL.,
Defendants,
KENNETH SULEWSKI, Captain of Segregation; JEFFREY TAYLOR,
Sergeant of Segregation; GLEN MORGAN; RUSSELL MITTASHCH,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
(9:94-CV-212)
_________________________________________________________________
June 3, 1999
Before KING, Chief Judge, and DUHE’ and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Rodney Earl Aldridge, a Texas state prisoner, appeals from
the district court’s dismissal of a portion of his civil rights
complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (now
§ 1915(e)) and from a judgment for the remaining defendants
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
1
following a jury trial. Aldridge argues that the district court
abused its discretion by dismissing as frivolous his claims that
the evidence was insufficient to support his disciplinary
conviction and that the defendants had been deliberately
indifferent to his serious medical needs, that the magistrate
judge abused his discretion by denying Aldridge’s requests for
the appointment of counsel, that he was denied a fair trial
because he was denied the right to present certain documentary
evidence to the jury, and that the defendants’ attorney
improperly referred to issues other than Aldridge’s excessive-
use-of-force claims in the presence of the jury.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by
dismissing as frivolous Aldridge’s claim that the evidence was
insufficient to support his disciplinary conviction because there
were facts that support the conviction. See Gibbs v. King, 779
F.2d 1040, 1044 (5th Cir. 1986) (stating that federal courts will
not review the sufficiency of the evidence at a disciplinary
hearing and that a finding of guilt requires only “some facts” or
“any evidence at all”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion by
dismissing as frivolous Aldridge’s claim that the defendants had
been deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs
because Aldridge failed to demonstrate that any of the defendants
disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm to him or that
they failed to take reasonable measures to abate a known risk of
harm. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994) (holding
2
that a prison official may be held liable under the Eighth
Amendment “only if he knows that inmates face a substantial risk
of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take
reasonable measures to abate it”). Thus, this portion of the
judgment is AFFIRMED.
As to Aldridge’s contentions concerning the magistrate
judge’s denial of his motions for the appointment of counsel, the
magistrate judge did not abuse his discretion by failing to
appoint counsel for Aldridge because there was no showing of
exceptional circumstances. See Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d
209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982) (civil rights plaintiff has no automatic
right to appointment of counsel; appointment is appropriate only
if there are exceptional circumstances). This portion of the
judgment is also AFFIRMED.
As to Aldridge’s remaining contentions, because Aldridge had
the responsibility to provide a transcript to this court but did
not do so, we must dismiss the appeal with regard to Aldridge’s
claims that he was denied the use of certain evidence at trial
and that the defendants’ attorney improperly referred to other
issues in the jury’s presence. See Richardson v. Henry, 902 F.2d
414, 416 (5th Cir. 1990) (“The failure of an appellant to provide
a transcript is a proper ground for dismissal of the appeal.”).
Although he filed two motions to obtain a transcript at the
government’s expense, these motions were denied because Aldridge
did not satisfy his burden of demonstrating that his appeal was
not frivolous and that the transcript was necessary for the
3
proper disposition of the appeal. See id. (dismissing appeal for
failure to provide transcript where defendant’s motions for
transcript at government’s expense had been denied). Thus,
Aldridge’s appeal is DISMISSED as to these remaining issues.
All outstanding motions are DENIED.
AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART; MOTIONS DENIED.
4