Case: 13-30866 Document: 00512545398 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/26/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 13-30866 February 26, 2014
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
LESLIE JEFFERSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS; NURSE LEE;
JERRY GOODWIN; JAMES LEBLANC; JOHN DOE; NURSE JEFF;
UNKNOWN, E A Conway Hospital,
Defendants-Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 5:10-CV-1317
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Leslie Jefferson, Louisiana prisoner # 442442, proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis (IFP), appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint,
which the district court dismissed as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
Jefferson argues that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his
medical needs, a claim we review for abuse of discretion. See Harper v.
Showers, 174 F.3d 716, 718 & n.3 (5th Cir. 1999).
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Case: 13-30866 Document: 00512545398 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/26/2014
No. 13-30866
Jefferson asserts that Nurse Lee was deliberately indifferent to his
serious medical needs when she treated his injuries, which resulted from a fall
from the top bunk in his cell, with only tape stitches. The record shows that
Jefferson received treatment for his injuries, including four visits to the prison
infirmary, one visit to an external hospital, stitches, a scan, and pain
medication. Jefferson’s assertions concerning Nurse Lee and the defendants
indicate only his disagreement with the prescribed treatment; these assertions
are not sufficient to establish that Nurse Lee or the other defendants acted
with deliberate indifference to Jefferson’s serious medical needs. See Gobert v.
Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 346 (5th Cir. 2006). Even if these facts show that his
treatment was negligent, negligent medical care does not constitute a valid
§1983 claim. See id.
The appeal is without arguable merit and, therefore, frivolous. See
Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, the appeal is
dismissed as frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Jefferson’s motion for the
appointment of appellate counsel is denied. See Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d
209, 212, 213 (5th Cir. 1982).
The district court’s dismissal of Jefferson’s complaint as frivolous and
this court’s dismissal of his appeal as frivolous count as two strikes for
purposes of § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir.
1996). Jefferson is hereby cautioned 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.” § 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION DENIED; SANCTION WARNING
ISSUED.
2