IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-40449
Summary Calendar
LORENZO THOMAS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JACKSON COMSTOCK, Individually & in his official capacity as
Lieutenant; BOBBY PURVIS, Individually & in his official capacity
as Sergeant; JERRY COWEN, Individually & in his official capacity
as Correctional Officer III; SAMMY BROWN, Individually & in his
official capacity as Correctional Officer III; TERRY VALENTINE,
Individually & in his official capacity as Correctional Officer
III; GARY HERRING, Sergeant; MICHAEL ROESLER, Captain; KATHRYN
BELL, Captain; DENICIA JEFFERSON, Administrative Technician III;
SYLVIA PIASTA, Chief of Classification; EUGENE HARBIN, Major;
ROBERT TREON, Warden; CEDERIC MCKNIGHT, Warden,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 9:96-CV-378
--------------------
March 6, 2001
Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Lorenzo Thomas, Texas prisoner # 739840, appeals the
district court’s dismissal as frivolous and for failure to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted of his claim that the
defendants failed to protect him from sexual assault. Thomas
told the defendants that he was receiving threats from members of
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-40449
-2-
his former gang; the defendants refused to place him in
protective custody; and he was subsequently sexually assaulted.
Because Thomas has not shown that the defendants were aware of
substantial risk that he would be sexually assaulted and
disregarded that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to
abate it, Thomas has not shown that the district court erred in
dismissing his claim. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847
(1994).
Thomas argues that the district court erred in dismissing
his claim without ruling on his objections to the defendants’
Martinez report.** Thomas’ claim lacks merit as the district
court reviewed the record, including Thomas’ objections, before
dismissing his claim.
Thomas argues that the district court erred in dismissing
his claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) because he paid a partial
filing fee. Because Thomas was proceeding IFP in the district
court under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b), the district court did not err
in dismissing Thomas’ claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
Thomas argues that the district court abused its discretion
in denying his motion for appointment of counsel. Because Thomas
has not shown that his case presented exceptional circumstances
warranting the appointment of counsel, he has not shown that the
district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for
appointment of counsel. See Cooper v. Sheriff, Lubbock County,
Tex., 929 F.2d 1078, 1084 (5th Cir. 1991).
**
Martinez v. Aaron, 570 F.2d 317 (10th Cir. 1978).
No. 00-40449
-3-
Thomas has filed a motion for appointment of counsel on
appeal. Because Thomas’ case does not present exceptional
circumstances, his motion is DENIED. See Cupit v. Jones, 835
F.2d 82, 86 (5th Cir. 1987). Thomas’ motion for reconsideration
is also DENIED.
AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED.