IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-60342
Conference Calendar
STEVEN EDWARD WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
LEON HAYES, Sheriff, Sheriff of Itawamba County;
KERMIT NEWELL, Chief Deputy/Administrator;
CHARLES JUSTICE, Investigator; JOE RESSE, Deputy,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:99-CV-34-D-D
--------------------
December 13, 2000
Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Steven Edward Williams, Mississippi prisoner # R1599,
appeals the district court’s judgment in favor of the defendants
in his civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Williams
asserts that the district court erred by granting summary
judgment in favor of the defendants. We review a grant of
summary judgment de novo. Thomas v. LTV Corp., 39 F.3d 611, 615
(5th Cir. 1994); Fraire v. Arlington, 957 F.2d 1268, 1273 (5th
Cir. 1992).
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-60342
-2-
Williams alleged that jail officials denied him medical care
and imposed unconstitutional conditions of confinement. At all
times relevant to this case, Williams was a detainee in the
Itawamba County Jail. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment protects detainees from being subjected to conditions
of confinement that constitute punishment. Hamilton v. Lyons, 74
F.3d 99, 103 (5th Cir. 1996)(citing Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S.
520, 535 (1979)). Williams allegations do not show that he was
punished.
Williams alleged that he was subjected to an excessive use
of force because guards at the jail sprayed him with mace.
Excessive-use-of-force claims are analyzed to determine "whether
the measure taken inflicted unnecessary and wanton pain and
suffering." Valencia v. Wiggins, 981 F.2d 1440, 1446 (5th Cir.
1993). There is no genuine issue of material fact that this was
not an appropriate measure to maintain discipline in the jail.
Williams alleged that he was denied access to the courts.
Other than to make the general statement that “his case was
severely compromised,” Williams has made no specific allegation
that his cause was prejudiced. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817,
828 (1977); Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996). The
district court did not err in entering summary judgment.
Williams’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED.
See Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982).
AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.