IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-30782
Summary Calendar
JAMES KNOX POLK, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DETENTION CENTER OF NATCHITOCHES PARISH;
CRAWFORD FICKLIN; OTIS SHIELDS; DEAN DOVE;
FAYE LEWIS,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 00-CV-293
--------------------
February 20, 2002
Before GARWOOD, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
James Knox Polk, Louisiana prisoner # 337496, appeals from
the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the
defendants. Polk filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that while he was a pretrial detainee, the
defendants housed him with convicts who attacked him.
We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de
novo, applying the same standard as would the district court.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-30782
-2-
Melton v. Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass’n of Am., 114 F.3d 557, 559
(5th Cir. 1997). For at least a portion of the time that Polk
was housed at the Natchitoches Parish Detention Center, he was a
pretrial detainee. “The State owes the same duty under the Due
Process Clause and the Eighth Amendment to provide both pretrial
detainees and convicted inmates with basic human needs, including
medical care and protection from harm during their confinement.”
Hare v. City of Corinth, 74 F.3d 633, 650 (5th Cir. 1996)(en
banc). A prison official is not liable under § 1983 unless the
prisoner shows that the official exhibited deliberate
indifference to his conditions of confinement or serious medical
needs. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837-43 (1994). The
prisoner must show that the official: (1) was aware of facts from
which an inference of an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health
or safety could be drawn; (2) drew an inference that such
potential for harm existed; and (3) disregarded that risk by
failing to take reasonable measures to abate it. Id. at 837,
847. A pretrial detainee’s claim based upon a jail official’s
“episodic act or omission” is also evaluated under the standard
of subjective deliberate indifference enunciated in Farmer. Hare
74 F.3d at 648.
The record shows that, the defendants met their burden of
demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact,
thereby entitling them to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex
Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); see also FED. R.
CIV. P. 56(c). The incarceration records and the defendants’
affidavits show that the defendants responded to Polk’s
No. 01-30782
-3-
complaints as to specific individuals by repeatedly moving him to
different dormitories. Polk makes only conclusory allegations of
the defendants’ liability to support his claims. See Koch v.
Puckett, 907 F.2d 524, 530 (5th Cir. 1990). The district court
did not err in granting the defendants’ motion for summary
judgment. The district court’s judgment dismissing Polk’s § 1983
complaint is AFFIRMED.