IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-30758
Summary Calendar
ANTHONY RAINES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
BARON KAYLO; RABAYLA, Warden; UNKNOWN OFFICER,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
(01-CV-458)
--------------------
October 15, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff-Appellant Anthony Raines, Louisiana prisoner
#350255, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. §
1983 complaint, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), as
frivolous. Raines contends that the district court erred in
refusing to appoint counsel to represent him in this suit. He also
asserts that the district court improperly dismissed his claims
against prison officials for violating the Eighth Amendment by
failing to protect him from injuries incurred during an attack by
another inmate.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
As Raines’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint did not involve any
exceptional circumstances, and as the documents filed by Raines
indicate that he was able to present his claims to the court
adequately and intelligently, the district court was not compelled
to appoint counsel for Raines. See Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d
209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982).
Not every injury “by one prisoner at the hands of another
. . . translates into constitutional liability for prison officials
responsible for the victim’s safety.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.
825, 834 (1994). Raines has not shown that he was “incarcerated
under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm and that
prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his need for
protection.” Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 533 (5th Cir. 1995).
Accordingly, the district court was within its discretion in
dismissing Raines’s Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claims as
frivolous. Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997).
The district court’s dismissal of Raines’s complaint as
frivolous counts as a “strike” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 385 (5th Cir. 1996). Raines
is warned that if he accumulates three “strikes,” he will no longer
be allowed to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while
he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under
imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g).
AFFIRMED. SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
2