IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-40223
Conference Calendar
WILLIAM L. FOSTER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
EDDIE WILLIAMS, Security Warden;
KEITH GORSUCH, Lieutenant;
PAUL GOMEZ, Correctional Officer III,
Mark Stiles Unit,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:97-CV-715
--------------------
October 20, 1999
Before JONES, WIENER, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
William Lee Foster (TDCJ # 543205) appeals the dismissal of
his pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP) civil rights complaint for
failure to state a claim and as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & (ii). Foster alleged in the complaint that
the defendants caused him to contract an unknown skin disease by
forcing him to sit on the unclean floor of the dayroom at TDCJ’s
Stiles Unit with other HIV positive inmates. Foster argues that
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 99-40223
-2-
the magistrate judge erred by determining that he failed to state
an Eighth Amendment claim because he had not demonstrated that
the defendants knowingly exposed him to a substantial risk of
serious harm.
"[A] prison official may be held liable under the Eighth
Amendment for denying humane conditions of confinement 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." Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994). "[T]he
official must both be aware of facts from which the inference
could be drawn . . . and he must also draw the inference." Id.
Foster has not shown that the defendants were aware that
they were exposing him to a substantial risk of serious harm by
requiring him to sit on the floor in the dayroom. Foster also
has failed to show that he was “denied” the grievance procedure
with regard to his Eighth Amendment claim. The judgment of the
district court is AFFIRMED. See Black v. Warren, 134 F.3d 732,
734 (5th Cir. 1998).
AFFIRMED.